Notices by 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 19

@mike805

Yes obviously true, but you know what I meant.

@lmrocha @thatguyoverthere

@lore Its still black magic, you just became the magician :)

@pj

In my opinion if you have to use guns to solve anything (even in case of the police) it means we as a society suck.

Then every society on earth sucks, and I wont disagree with that… Until you eliminate rape and violent acts from even being attempted then you will never be able to rely on cops. Cops will always be some distance away and it will always require you to have access to a phone and early enough warning make the phone call.

Usually if someone is being raped or held at knife point or assaulted in the overwhelming majority of cases there was never a chance to even reach out to the police in the first place.

So yes I am happy to eliminate guns, if the criteria for it is you must first eliminate all violent crimes so you can ensure we dont need those guns in the first place.

When a guy is twice your size physical defense training is perhaps going to help the womans odds slightly but she will still be at a huge disadvantage, afterall men and women can both get that same training so its not a equalizing force.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

Id say even extremely violent people should have a path to get their rights back, the key shoukd be recovery and eventually entering society again... that said they may have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there since thry woukd have to show quite clearly they have been reabilitated.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

Yup in fact criminals already have big barriers (and i think its ok to make access to criminal records easier).

So by its very nature one would expect good guys with guns to far outweight bad guys with guns from the start. Which implies most of the protection from guns is going to be against unarmed people.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@pj

If you want criteria on who can or cant own a gun get support for a new amendment. At the moment it clearly states "shall lot be infringed".

It has been shown in no uncertain terms that the 2A intended to include all people. You want to change it thats fine go through the propernlegal channels.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

guns arent to protect yourself from a bad person with guns... not sure why you keep repeating something that everyone has told you isnt the case or what is being argued...

We have access to guns to protect you from bad people with knives, or fists, or a penis and muscles they intend to use to force you into submission and rape you... Guns are the great equalizer and to use them against other guns is not remotely the point, yet somehow anti-gun people keep repeating the same nonsense like a broken record to disagree with an argument no one ever said.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

Yea its an invalid argument in so many ways.. for one its just not relevant, and for another the founding fathers were rather explicit the constitution intended "we the people" to mean everyone.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

We dont need a definition for people, we all know what a person is and the founding fathers made it very clear they intended that word to include all people.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@pj

QOTO is a place for **respectful** debate... lets not do that please.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

It was not narrow, at least not in the constitution. the founding fathers made rather clear, at least many of them, that they wanted many to have equal rights but sadly the states in many cases, and people, just werent ready for it. So it had to be explicitly added as an amendment.

The quotes from the founding fathers during and after the writing of the constitution was quite clear that their definition of People was in fact extraordinarily broad for the time period and very much they wanted to include blacks in that definition (and likely other minorities).

Some quotes:

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” – George Washington, 1786

"Article the Sixth. There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory" -- James Madison, at the constitutional convention address prohibition against slavery as an article.

“We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” – James Madison (also at the constitutional convention)

“Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country." -- George Mason

“The omitting the Word [slave] will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed.” – John Dickinson, draft of notes for a speech at the Constitutional Convention

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in…abhorrence.” – John Adams, 1819

@lmrocha @thatguyoverthere @mike805

@lmrocha

I woukd argue licenses and insurance shouldnt be allowed in their current form either... but arguing one thing is valid simply because some other thing exists is pretty weak argument IMO

@thatguyoverthere @mike805

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Surr thry do, thry explicitly state the right shall not be infringed. Pretty clear that means all people.

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Also no, there was never a well regulated criteria. That was an exemplarly clause as is explicitly stated, not a qulifying clause. Thry have been quotes countless time saying as much.

@pj

People have literally banned entire classes of guns such as handguns and imaginary "assault rifles".. not only arr thry coming for our guns, they are explicit about it...

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

The fact that you can make a fully automatic gun in a few hours out of scrap parts, or 3d print one dmakes the whole gun control argument very moot, but thats a separate issue.

@icedquinn @mike805 @lmrocha

@icedquinn

I strongly support better access to mental health. Hell I wouldnt even mind taxing guns such that the tax pays for some of that mental health access.

That said I also beleive in bodily autonomy and that means the absolute right to suicide and not making the effort to block access to something on the basis that it can be used for suicide... if someone wants to kill themselves with a gun, that is their fundamental right, its their body.

@mike805 @lmrocha

@lmrocha

Please dont take this personal, but you are really comming across as uneducated on the topic with many of your comments, especially this one... Automatic weapons have been banned at a state and federal level for a very long time now (I think 60s or 70s).... There are no automatic weapons on the streets to worry about aside from a very rare few antiques.

@icedquinn @mike805

@lmrocha

Nah, the amendment says nothing of white men, and the foubding fathers made no hijts that is what they intended... well regulated militia is very obviously an exemplary clause not a qualifying clause

@mike805

@lmrocha

Yea thats complete nonsense... the data is quite clear.. at best banning guns does nothing to help improve the violent, rape, and homicide rates... though at best it significantly reduces it (and the data leans towards the latter)

The number one death for children means nothing if you dont compare it to the number of children's lives saved by guns as well, or correct for kids killed in gun free zones.

Again this is like the anti-vaxxers argument "If you ban vaccines we will significantly reduce the deaths caused by vaccines"... while true its an intellectually dishonest argument.

@mike805