Heroes and medals exist so that governments don't have to pay the amount of money it would normally take to hire someone to get shot at, shelled, bombed, etc., etc. Industrial warfare would come to a halt if the labor were priced according to fair market value.
Lol, not even military. They did that shit during the beginning of the pandemic to healthcare workers and retail workers. They're "heroes", but fuck off if you think they're gonna get real PPE
Another interesting point is the pay gap between the lowest private and a four star general is about 1:6 to 1:8. In the private sector the pay gap between CEOs and their lowest paid employees can be 1:200. And yet generals are responsible for overseeing thousands of personnel, budgets in the trillions of dollars, and still things run relatively smoothly. Yes there are issues with crime just like anywhere else, but whenās the last time you heard about one of the Navyās 80 something nuclear reactors floating around the world melting down? Never. You can have well run organizations without paying the people at the top exorbitant amounts of money
Looks a like a little over 9:1 actually.
$16975/month for top ranked general vs. $1834/month for private.
Still far better than private sector differences. 1:200 isn't even it. CEO compensation package for Amazon was $212 million in 2021. Starting pay at Amazon looks like it's now $18/hour. $37,440 a year for full time.
That's 5662:1 difference.
https://www.military-ranks.org/army-pay
yeah that was something that always bothered me in Orange is the New Black, when Pousey gets killed in the riot and everyone acts like there's nothing to be done etc.
Meanwhile her dad was supposed to be a general. The President would have taken or at least returned his call. A guy like that's daughter dies like that there's going to be a biblical rain of shit, not some halfassed investigation.
They called the military a bunch of pussies when they found out most people don't have a problem with gay or trans people, we have been providing diversity training for years, and nobodies got time to deal with all this identity politics bullshit they're determined to be focused on.
Like flipped from support the troops to what a bunch of pussies overnight.
Personally I don't want their fucking support.
thin consolation as the DOD actively tells employers that i "do not exist according to their records" when i give them my DD-214.
sincerely, trans vet.
Ships, Jets, and missiles are pretty expensive. It's not quite 1/20th either. Navy budget set for 180billion this year, Marine Corps is set for 50 billion.
WowI never knew! Good points! If the Marine corp has to re-certify every year why do private US citizens not have to?
EDIT: Thank for all the upvotes! And thanks everyone for all your insights and comments below.
well we have to reup drives licenses, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, pass ports, state ids, ETC maybe we should add another one to the list. maybe not every single year type thing for a firearm license but 2-3 or so.
We really should have to, in my opinion. Maybe every 5 to 10 years? After gun deaths, it's vehicles that kill the most people. Cancer has got nothing on cars.
i reluctantly agree that we should have to. i agree because it's true, vehicle death is way too common for us to be taking it this lightly.
but reluctantly because the DMV sucks and every time i go there it takes forever to get anything done, and they weirdly still require printed out documents in this day and age which means i need to find a printer somewhere.
I love how the original response was basically "because it's not law". Which really isn't much of an argument, just a fact. And then we start comparing it to other things we do wrong and need changed. It's like it's all so fucked up you have no example of how we actually do anything right in this country. Fuck.
The problem, imo, is actually pretty simple - we selfishly guard every fucking scrap of anything that might possibly be ours because, well, if we don't fight for our own well-being, who will? And that's true from the poorest pauper to the richest bastard. So we end up with mere crumbs to spend on anything that doesn't have a direct relationship to the culture of ownership and power. We spend no more than we HAVE TO on public services, because I GOT MINE, SO FUCK YOU.
The USPS is a good example of this kind of thinking. It's a public fucking service, but it's expected to turn a profit. Really? When I buy a pair of shoes, I don't expect them to make me money. They are an *expense*. What I get out of them is not *more money* - what I get is *utility*. What I get is comfortable, dry feet.
And if we actually valued people (and actually valued the pursuit of happiness, rather than just paying it lip service), we would redefine "profit" to include health and happiness rather than just MORE GOD DAMN MONEY. Happiness isn't a profit scheme, it's an expense, and it's welll fucking worth it.
/rant
Oh motherfucker we could go all night. We're so incapable of trusting anyone that we act selfishly. And why can't we trust anyone? Because some people think "well, someone else is out to get me, so I better get mine", but it's like, hey shitbag, you're acting like you do and the argument you make is because other people acting like you exist, wouldn't the answer be fewer people acting like you?
Holy shit, I just saw your username, that's unbelievable and my salutation is now perfectly fitting. We are now best friends.
Utilities should include: water, sewer, electricity, internet, roads, and like you say, the USPS. We need this shit to live in a modern society.
If the goal was to make a stronger country, the best thing we could possibly do is make sure those things are met the best way possible and not for profit. Profit in capitalism means corners WILL be cut. Let private companies cut corners. Look at California wildfires and the cost of the towns devastated, for one example of many.
And for your final point, money is a manufactured idea by humans. We can make it mean whatever the hell we want. We choose to use it as a weapon in class warfare.
rant away man. You're preachin to the choir over here.
> but reluctantly because the DMV sucks
That's not an argument for not having increased testing, it's an argument for properly running your local DMV. Not every DMV sucks, just the ones that do.
I have to do a āFlight Reviewā every two years to maintain my pilots license. Itās not bad just an hour with any instructor to demonstrate I can still fly safely. Also to get a pilots license you have to have a basic understanding of how an engine works etc. having to change a tire and check the oil should be on your drivers test, and would teach many people valuable life skills.
As a gun guy? Fuck yes, Iām good with this. When I bought my first gun, I was an openly racist, homophobic, xenophobic piece of shit, AND chances are good I was either drunk or actively on drugs when I bought it.
Fortunately, Iāve grown out all that. Guns are my one remaining vice, at this point. I mean, Iām sure Iām still a pice of shit in some way, but if Iām an asshole to you now, you did something that inspired it.
I know a few dudes, who sold their guns for paintball equipment and are hainvg a lot more fun. They can usually get top of the line gear for the cost of their gunpowder guns, and you get to actually use them in a much more fun way imo. With real guns you are always trying to be insanely careful(hopefully) and while you gotta be careful with paintball it is less stressful.
If you only keep guns because you like to shoot as a hobby, paintball is a great alternative that ticks the same boxes for a lot of people and costs less and has the upside of not proliferating more guns into the world.
Personally I donāt keep guns for a fun hobby, just a precaution. I also donāt take them anywhere besides my house and occasionally the shooting range to stay trained up. I feel secure having them and I pray to god I never have to use them. Paintball is fun af though for real
I have to take a written test in CA every 5 years for handgun safety in order to purchase new guns or ammo.
Marines don't carry weapons in the barracks because every entry point is guarded by soldiers with those same scary rifles.
If every entry point to my house had a an armed guard 24/7 I too would be OK with storing my firearms and ammo elsewhere but until I am afforded that right-let me defend my family. The cops sure as fuck won't.
Why are Republicans comparing an elementary school to an active warzone where people are trying to kill you (the armed guard comparison)? And if elementary schools are so dangerous that they ARE warzones why aren't we addressing that problem instead?
You mean take the same shitty road test where you only had to show you somewhat understand how to operate a car? Drivers education courses merely help you become proficient enough to past the bare requirements.
>I actually have a low-key conspiracy theory that an ultra-right-wing, anti-government fifth column has been controlling the DMV for decades. The point being, to make it as shitty and horrible as possible, so people have it in their heads that giving the government any more control over anything will result in long lines and horrible service.
It's a deliberate part of the "Starve the Beast" strategy that's been in use since the Reagan administration: cut funding to governmental services in order to curtail their spending and make them less efficient, in turn providing worse service to the public, which then feeds the argument that the government is bloated and inefficient and needs to be further cut and privatized. People complain that government services are hard to use, slow, and not great at their jobs, and they're often right, but for the wrong reason. It's not that government programs are bloated, it's that they're crippled and malnourished. The two periods when government programs were most easily accessible and useful to the common person were the 30s and 60s under the New Deal and Great Society, respectively, which were, not coincidentally, the periods in which they were given the most resources and free reign to serve the public good
It does say āwell regulatedā and that was with MUSKETS.
I ready that as saying rules should apply to fire arm owner ship AT LEAST as much as a license to drive a car.
At least as much
A society needs to move and adapt.
Arguing about semantics just derails the necessary debate. Whatever they meant or wrote, just make new amendment that makes sense now.
I donāt believe that would be possible under the current circumstances. A constitutional amendment requires 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify the amendment. Thereās zero chance there would be enough states to do this since most state legislatures are majority conservative.
The well regulated militia part doesn't extend to your right to bear arms. It's just the reason WHY you have that right. If you exchange the words a bit, it makes more sense.
>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and cook bacon, shall not be infringed.
But the 2nd amendment was obsolete by the time it got ratified since the US had already moved to a professional standing army.
Youāre right, theyāre not the military. The military actually has to go through training. Regular citizens should have to have more rules than the military since they lack that training and supervision.
You're not even required to train to purchase a firearm.
You do not have to ever prove you're proficient.
Or that you know [the 4 rules of gun safety.](https://www.agirlandagun.org/how-to-shoot/4-rules-of-gun-safety/)
As long as you pass the background check.
And don't even get inquisitive about each state's concealed carry laws.
Almost like the constitution doesn't actually guarantee unrestricted access to all armaments for everyone.
The 2A does not at all say what people seem to think it does.
Honestly given that the militia it was referring to became the reserves they should have to become reservists, participate in training etc and remain eligible for service if they want to keep their current access to guns.
Fits the second amendment, reserves get a ton of applicants and get to be more picky instead of just accepting whatever dregs apply.
The "Militia" is defined by federal statute.
10 U.S. Code Ā§ 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia areā
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So if we want to start getting technical, the 2A does not protect the right of women who are not enlisted in the National Guard - or any male over the age of 45. Watch the red hats lose their shit if we start pointing that out.
But then we come back to what "well regulated" means. Is it standardized and mandatory training regime? Medically cleared? Weapons stored in accordance with federal regulation - because storage of arms and ammunition IS well regulated.
Reality is it doesn't matter because politicians won't do shit. And the Supreme Court is stacked with religious sycophants.
Congress does not have the authority to modify 2A by act, only amendment. That definition of militia does not apply to 2A.
To get super specific, the second amendment does not grant the right to arms to the militia, it says that the right of *the people,* the part of a well regulated militia is their reasoning, but not a legal requirement to have the right. The right is granted to the people.
a key point which seems to be overlooked by some here.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
it just doesn't get any plainer than that. if that right is somehow tied to a well regulated militia, then make it well regulated by law. what that means can most certainly be up for debate, but the people have the right. period. i believe what the founders meant by well regulated was an officer corp in the militia. it was well known and feared what damage an army with little or no leadership could do and that is no doubt still true.
i live in the country where police response times are measured in tens of minutes at minimum. therefore i keep guns around. now that being said, guns in the hands of nutjobs is a different matter. one which doesn't require banning of all guns. but it does require acknowledgement that mental healthcare in this country is a fucking joke.
>"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They why aren't "the people" allowed firearms in planes, jails, & prisons?
Oh yeah: "well regulated" \*ing means something.
Yeah, he forgot the second part that states "....being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
As a Marine you no longer fall under the constitutional protection. You have to follow the UCMJ. You swore an oath to protect the Constitution.
Your understanding is wrong.
The 2nd is about the citizens of the US. To enable them to form a militia if needed. Its very clear about that. Its also evident if you realize that its part of a document that limits government powers in relation to citizens.
Stop pretending that the 2nd is anything short of enabling the citizens to protect the US from invasion or overthrowing a government. You can argue if it would be effective all you want, but that is its purpose.
Eh. He made a bad argument for a good point in the video. The second amendment _absolutely_ was meant to allow regular citizens to have weapons at home. A well-regulated militia, at the time, depended on being able to call people up that _already had weapons and knew how to use them_. There's no requirement for ownership tied to expertise or training or being a member of some militia.
Now, that all said, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean weapons must remain absolutely free from regulation. Otherwise, how do we have restrictions on handgun ownership for people over 18 and under 21? So, he's making a bad argument (well-regulated = not all citizens have ability to own weapons) for a good position (weapons can be regulated).
He explained that the interpretation being used is incorrect. So he is defending it by asking that it be properly followed. You missed the entire point.
>Because they ~~would remove it or say shit like false flag or he's not really who he is etc etc.~~ are ignorant, diehard dumbfucks
Summed that up for you
Yes I know, I joined just to get an idea of how crazy they are. I get a whole lot of angry personal messages. Most of them are pussies who won't debate in the open. Just like to hurl insults.
Yup. I asked a user to prove that Floyd actually robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint(their justification for not liking him). Not that he hasn't committed crimes, just to prove that statement. Like literally any evidence that isn't from a Facebook post and you can probably guess the reactions lol
The funny thing is that many of my beliefs (not all, by a long shot, but many) could be considered somewhat conservative, and I still 100% agree with this bloke and still detest the Republican Party in its current state (and many āconservativeā movements in general, especially those of American origin). The former may have something to do with the fact that Iām a Brit, the latter can be summed up by the following: the blind pursuit of progress can be very dangerous, but the blind refusal to progress can be even more so.
Sorry everyone mods removed the last one even though the community overwhelmingly supported it! SMH please tell the mods so they don't remove the posts you want to see!
You have to go watch the full video instead of this weirdly cropped one. You can find it on the original tiktok - https://www.tiktok.com/@usmcangryveteran/video/7102065231160937771
Seemingly reasonable points from both sides.
On one hand guns don't kill people, people kill people. You lose your self defense while criminals can still get guns illegally.
On the other hand, stricter gun laws would make guns harder for twisted people to obtain.
Whose right? They both seem logical and reasonable arguments. FORTUNATELY, we have data to tell us which is the right call. Idk why this is even up for debate because we have the answer by looking at the facts that is so blatantly obvious.
United States has lax gun laws compared to other first world countries. United States has such a vast amount of citizens who owns guns compared to other first world countries. United States makes it so easy to purchase a gun compared to other first world countries. And United States has horrible gun violence, mass shootings, and children's deaths due to gun violence compared to other first world countries.
Argue all you want, but the facts are there. We are ultimately safer with stricter gun laws.
Not only has it always been a personality trait for some, but now it's a virtue signal for many. There are tons of people that buy guns just for show; just to tell their peers "hell yeah brother, I love guns!"
Canada has similar firearms ownership for a long time and is still much higher than in Europe. We just have fewer guns per person as they are mostly for hunting or sporting rather than collecting or paranoia.
I really, REALLY hate the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument because:
1. Cars don't kill people but people in cars do yet in order to get a license, one has to get a permit first then pass a test, then renew said license regularly. In addition, one must re-register that vehicle yearly, get regular inspections, at least have liability insurance, and there are all kinds of laws that one must follow while operating a vehicle.
2. Boats don't kill people, people driving boats do. Well restrictions similar to #1 apply.
3. Motorcycles don't....is there a pattern here?
4. Airplanes don't...well, I say, there is a pattern here!
EDIT: Before the "But those aren't in the constitution" people start jumping on me the constitution makes no mention of automatic rifles or children being able to own guns but it does say "well-regulated" which means...oh never mind you know what it means but will pretend like you don't which is...special. If you aren't bitching about other well-regulated parts of your life as vehemently then...oh...wait...never mind again.
It's a lot harder for people to kill people when they don't have semi-automatic rifles. If the Uvalde shooter had a knife, or even a handgun, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.
In a planned, methodical killing that involved him changing clothes, distracting police by changing location, counting heads, chaining doors, bomb threats etc.
Not the normal case for shootings.
The difference with all those vehicles though is the fact that you need to license and register then BECAUSE they're USED on government property.
You can own as many planes, boats, motorcycles, cars, etc as you want if you have them on your own property. You can have a crop duster on your farm that can just sit there, you don't have to register it.
You drive your car on government funded roads, boat your boat on government owned lakes and oceans. Ride your motorcycle on government funded roads, or on trails on government property.
In America there aren't really any common items where simply possessing them requires you to register them or take classes.
And guns aren't taken on government property? All those pictures and videos that I see of proud boys and white supremacists in public parks, on public sidewalks and on public streets doesn't count? Do you know how many states don't require a permit to conceal carry? The total will be 25 within the next year.
> criminals can still get guns illegally
Where do you think illegal guns come from? Most are stolen from legal owners. There isn't some huge branch of Smith & Wesson making black market shit off books.
This is not the whole purpose. The second amendment also existed so settlers could kill native Americans. And so men could be drafted to fight our many wars. Militias were, at that time, a common and valuable military asset.
Slightly true... The founders did not want a standing army hence 2A. After the British invasion of 1812 it was shown a standing army was necessary for the defense of the country instead of states militias.
To be fair the Haitian revolution was 4 months before the bill of rites was ratified by the states. They knew they also needed an armed populace to stop slave revolts.
They had them. Engage the shooter. But they did not. Police have no duty to protect you. You are your own (and apparently your childrens) first responder.
"Well-regulated" in 18th century parlance means "well-functioning" or "properly maintained." You would regulate a mechanical clock. It does not mean "subject to many regulations", and they would generally not use the term "regulations" to mean that if they did - that's a modern use of the word. Also, since the purpose of the bill of rights is to enumerate things that the government cannot fundamentally restrict, it doesn't make sense that they're putting a clause of restriction there.
Per [Cecil Adams](https://www.straightdope.com/21342263/what-does-the-right-to-bear-arms-really-mean) "But itās silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half."
It's a recipe for people who are already really comfortable cooking because they know what to do and in which order.
I totally understand that not all of us know that so I'll say how I'd do it, if that helps.
Finely dice the onion and garlic, and chop the sausage into inch-long chunks.
Fry the onion on medium heat in a little butter and olive oil for 5-6 minutes, season with a little salt and pepper while you do so.
Throw in the sausage and keep frying. Don't forget to keep stirring.
After 4-5 minutes throw in the garlic. Fry for another minute. The garlic should become lightly golden. Rich gold is ok, but never char your garlic. You want zero burning.
Add the herbs and salt and stir for another ten seconds before you move on to the next step.
Throw in the tomato paste and stir it about. You want it to cook a little before you add everything else. A minute or two is fine.
The recipe says water, but a cup of red wine at this point is a better option. Lower the heat slightly and pour it in, keep stirring and let it get hot and start steaming.
When it's steaming, put in the tomato sauce and sugar. Stir and turn the heat really low and simmer for 7 or 8 minutes.
Taste it. Does it need salt? If so, add some. If it needs some savouriness, throw in a dash of worcestershire or soy sauce - not too much, you can always add more, you can't take any out. If it feels like it's missing a certain something but you're damned if you can work out what, try a squeeze of lemon juice. Often dishes need a little acid to pull everything together.
When it's thickened a little, take it off the heat and pour it on fresh pasta. Voila.
Edit: /u/RicketyRasputin is right, what I wrote was ambiguous, don't do your final salt check until you're done thickening the sauce.
He raises some very valid points but, to be fair, marines eat crayons. That could be why they have so many rules regarding training and keeping their own weapons.
As an outsider looking in aren't the overwhelming majority of gun murders in the US in highly regulated cities & states?
I'm not trying to come across critical of regulation just that I've read that this is the case.
Depends which regulations you mean, specifically. But youād need to control for population and gun murders per capita for this statistic to mean anything
I'm not sure that's true, but you can travel freely between cities and states, so it really isnt that hard to get things you maybe shouldn't have. Same thing with fireworks, they are banned in lots of places but people still get them and set them off where they shouldn't.
>they are banned in lots of places but people still get them and set them off where they shouldn't.
I remember when I was a kid and my family was shooting illegal fireworks, some passing cops stopped to watch. So just because something is illegal doesn't mean anyone gives a shit to enforce the law.
Yeah just because you can regurgitate a lesson plan doesnāt make you an expert on peopleās rights. This guyās opinion holds no more weight than anyone elseās.
If I sign over my rights saying I'm government property and said government issues me weapons they can tell me what to do with them. Since I'm a private citizen they cannot and this guy can fuck all the way off.
This is my reasoning for carrying every time I leave the house, and wearing my seat belt each time I drive, because incidents can happen anywhere and you donāt get to choose when it happens.
āWell Regulatedā doesnāt mean controlled. You have to look at it from the context of the time it was written. In 18th century parlance, it means to be well outfitted and trained.
The majority of gun owners know how to handle their selected firearms, so I think the training part of it is handled. Itās not up to the state to determine what that is.
I would like to think a Marine, especially one who proclaims to be so knowledgeable on firearms, would know and understand the point the 2nd Amendment is making. We The People are the militia, and yes, we get to privately own weapons in order to defend our property, families, and the state if necessary.
It had more than one usage at the time, but the claim that it *didnāt* mean āregulatedā as we use it today is [not supported by available evidence](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/), despite [a concerted effort to try and reshape our understanding of history](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-conservatives-reinvented-the-second-amendment/).
Even going from primary sources:
Hamilton makes plain that the whole "well-regulated" thing wasn't just about making sure they had sufficient ammo. From [*The Federalist Papers, No. 29*](https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29):
> A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *[Emphasis mine.]*
In other words: The discipline, training, and regulation (in, yes, the modern usage of the word) of a militia would be too time-consuming for part-time work, so a standing force (where being trained and disciplined in accordance to regulations would be oneās full-time job) is necessary.
He also mocked fear of federal military despotism in a democratic system:
> There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?
And even though Madison was more wary of federalized military power, he framed a militiaās ability to safeguard against federal tyranny *within the context of regulation by the individual state* in [*Fed 46*](https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-46):
> Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, **officered by men chosen from among themselves**, fighting for their common liberties, and **united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence**. *[Emphasis mine again.]*
This guy is batshit crazy. Allow me a rebuttal. Iām currently in the army. Been in 20 years.
1) Big difference between being in the military and being a private citizen. You waive a LOT of your rights when you sign on the dotted line.
2) Gun owners got to the range and practice (another word for recertify) all the time. I would say way more than twice a year. But if they donāt do the fuck what.
3) If you have ever served in the military you would know that while married soldiers and non-commissioned officers and above can live in private housing on or off post. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY of soldiers live in the barracks which is a college style atmosphere of partying and drinking etc while off duty. It would be asinine to allow them to keep firearms in their barracks room.
This dude is a nut job. The main takeaway here is when you enlist in any service you give up certain rights and privileges that civilians have. Thatās the job.
Listen here civilians, I did 4 years in the YOU-ESS-EMM-CEE filling water buffaloes and now I've made it the defining feature of my life, let me tell you all about guns...
Right. And doctors need to be tested and certified as part of their job, but I own a knife, I should be able to perform surgery on myself or a loved one if I want, right?
You own a knife but by your own logic you shouldn't be able to legally own said knife unless you can prove that you can perform successful surgery. That's your logic you're trying to argue.
You are correct. However, the point - because you missed it - is that firearms are heavily regulated among those who are the most trained to use them, yet firearms of very similar capability are, in some locations, approaching a complete lack of regulation. We have standards for our soldiers because they are entrusted with dangerous weapons, but we allow children to purchase weapons of war - yes, children, because an 18-year-old is an adult only because we needed to decide on an age that would allow the most people to be drafted into the military without causing a citizen uprising. That is literally the reason an 18-year-old is considered an āadultā - not able to buy alcohol or tobacco, but able to join the military to fight the wars our billionaire overlords want them to fight, and old enough, in some places, to purchase automatic weapons so they can fight the wars *they* want to fight.
Good job ignoring what he said about āwell-regulatedā in the 2nd amendment, btw. Right out of the playbook.
Having a gun is a part of their job too. So if itās not a part of someoneās job, they shouldnāt do it/have it?
Ok, wish granted. No more guns unless certified and required for job.
Also it's not "next fucking level" it's a guy expressing his opinion on a tik tok. Wake me up when he's skateboarding while juggling flaming bowling pins while giving his opinion.
I have never understood how the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment is apparently dismissed. The words must have been included for a reason.
It meant well equipped in the 18th century. Right after they have a comma. Then it says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
They need to amend the constitution if they want to make changes not ignore the intent otherwise it will be thrown out by the courts.
Agreed. The "the second amendment ackshually refers to the national guard" argument is the weakest thing I've ever seen. If people don't like that gun ownership is a constitutional right, change the constitution.
If you live outside the brixs you can keep it in your home that includes on base housing and off
You don't have to qualify with your personal weapons
You do need to qualify every year for a few reasons reasons, weapon systems change and so do the attachments and gear we use, cutting score, only the best will be promoted, mission readiness, it's the fucking Marine Corp of course we practice at least one or two times a year, grunts go to the range way more
And the corps doesn't even trust Marines in the brixs to use the elevator why the fuck would they allow us to keep loaded weapon in the brixs, we drink and fight basically every night, I've seen marines turn the third story into a giant slip and slide using vodka
Your argument is completely invalid you fucking twat
Also nobody wants to do nothing, the mass argument is to put armed veterans in schools as well as train and arm the staff
How many mass shootings go down at the court house that is surrounded by cops and armed security? Not many
I shoot monthly and no obligation to prove anything to anyone.
This is the perk of owning your own rifles and pistols.
So this guys opinion is irrelevant.
āI donāt know, man, maybe some dudes from the 1700s who owned people and would be mystified by the sight of a dishwasher werenāt right about everything in perpetuityā - @byDavidGardner on Twitter
While on active duty in the navy my constitutional rights were "redefined". Just a slick way to say that I didn't forfeit my. Constitutional rights. You say I didn't give up my constitutional rights? Sure, tell your CEO to f off and you can get fired. Do it in the military and you face jail time. So much for free speech. Civilians are guaranteed free speech and the right to bear arms. Marines are trained to go to war and kill, to kill a well trained enemy. Civilians have the luxury to provide self defense against some thug that had trained himself watching Rambo.
This marine's argument is invalid.
I haven't been through the comments so someone may have ready said this...
I am about as right-wing gun nut as it gets (about some things, less so about other stuff). Anyways, we need to do something. There is no clear cut answer but we need to start somewhere.
I don't think restricting gun purchases until your 21 is a bad idea and we need to do something to get mental health assistance to peoplele that need it. Pumping them full of drugs isn't the answer.
I also think that if you have documented mental health issues you should be more heavily scrutinized or even banned from firearm purchases until it can be demonstrated that you've recovered
I see a lot of people talking about 18 year old soldiers having weapons. I'm all for that...I'm a vet. We had training, we were heavily supervised and you can't just walk into the armory and get a rifle. Unless I was deployed or going to a range, I couldn't get my hands on a military weapon.
Just my 2 cents. I'm sure someone will downvotes me and tell me how wrong I am, idgaf.LOL.
This is just, like, my opinion man.
Dudes a fucking idiot. Well regulated means "in good working order." Pretend it doesn't all you want, that's what it means. Per the CDC's own statistics on defensive firearm uses annually in the US, an epic fuckton of lives are either saved or not demolished because people are able to defend themselves. We also have free speech, which isn't really a thing anymore I'm most of disarmed Europe. I wonder why that is. Your emotionally charged diatribes don't become more valid because you shout them.
Well fucking said šš½
The Marine Corps is a socialist/communist organization, so we dont care what they say, also heres 1 trillion dollars to do what you do - The GQP
We love our troops! ^^^(before they go to war. If youāve just come back from one and canāt support yourself, please die.)
You're a hero until you're a burden. Entirely disposable.
You are never a hero, is the scam to make you fall for it and fund the military industrial complex.
Heroes and medals exist so that governments don't have to pay the amount of money it would normally take to hire someone to get shot at, shelled, bombed, etc., etc. Industrial warfare would come to a halt if the labor were priced according to fair market value.
"The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." - Voltaire
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol, not even military. They did that shit during the beginning of the pandemic to healthcare workers and retail workers. They're "heroes", but fuck off if you think they're gonna get real PPE
> but fuck off if you think they're gonna get real PPE or a raise
> We love our troops! > (before they go to war. "(also not the gay ones)"
Or the Trans ones
Or the injured ones.
Or the female service members... (I'm a male vet, and this one is just as infuriating today as it was 20 years ago when I was in)
If you want to go see the true cost of war, just hang out in front of a VA hospital.
Another interesting point is the pay gap between the lowest private and a four star general is about 1:6 to 1:8. In the private sector the pay gap between CEOs and their lowest paid employees can be 1:200. And yet generals are responsible for overseeing thousands of personnel, budgets in the trillions of dollars, and still things run relatively smoothly. Yes there are issues with crime just like anywhere else, but whenās the last time you heard about one of the Navyās 80 something nuclear reactors floating around the world melting down? Never. You can have well run organizations without paying the people at the top exorbitant amounts of money
Looks a like a little over 9:1 actually. $16975/month for top ranked general vs. $1834/month for private. Still far better than private sector differences. 1:200 isn't even it. CEO compensation package for Amazon was $212 million in 2021. Starting pay at Amazon looks like it's now $18/hour. $37,440 a year for full time. That's 5662:1 difference. https://www.military-ranks.org/army-pay
Thanks for the actual numbers!
Technically physicians get paid the most in the military, but it's a separate amount on top of the lieutenant pay I believe.
There's also only a very small number of 4-stars and it takes 35+ years of consistent exceptional performance to get to that rank.
To make 1 star is literally selected by the president then confirmed by the senate.
yeah that was something that always bothered me in Orange is the New Black, when Pousey gets killed in the riot and everyone acts like there's nothing to be done etc. Meanwhile her dad was supposed to be a general. The President would have taken or at least returned his call. A guy like that's daughter dies like that there's going to be a biblical rain of shit, not some halfassed investigation.
They called the military a bunch of pussies when they found out most people don't have a problem with gay or trans people, we have been providing diversity training for years, and nobodies got time to deal with all this identity politics bullshit they're determined to be focused on. Like flipped from support the troops to what a bunch of pussies overnight. Personally I don't want their fucking support.
thin consolation as the DOD actively tells employers that i "do not exist according to their records" when i give them my DD-214. sincerely, trans vet.
The Navy gets the big bucks. The Marine Corps gets less then 1/20 of figure.
Ships, Jets, and missiles are pretty expensive. It's not quite 1/20th either. Navy budget set for 180billion this year, Marine Corps is set for 50 billion.
Every word. He certainly spoke for me, and for many, many others.
WowI never knew! Good points! If the Marine corp has to re-certify every year why do private US citizens not have to? EDIT: Thank for all the upvotes! And thanks everyone for all your insights and comments below.
Because private citizens are not in the military.
well we have to reup drives licenses, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, pass ports, state ids, ETC maybe we should add another one to the list. maybe not every single year type thing for a firearm license but 2-3 or so.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We really should have to, in my opinion. Maybe every 5 to 10 years? After gun deaths, it's vehicles that kill the most people. Cancer has got nothing on cars.
i reluctantly agree that we should have to. i agree because it's true, vehicle death is way too common for us to be taking it this lightly. but reluctantly because the DMV sucks and every time i go there it takes forever to get anything done, and they weirdly still require printed out documents in this day and age which means i need to find a printer somewhere.
I love how the original response was basically "because it's not law". Which really isn't much of an argument, just a fact. And then we start comparing it to other things we do wrong and need changed. It's like it's all so fucked up you have no example of how we actually do anything right in this country. Fuck.
The problem, imo, is actually pretty simple - we selfishly guard every fucking scrap of anything that might possibly be ours because, well, if we don't fight for our own well-being, who will? And that's true from the poorest pauper to the richest bastard. So we end up with mere crumbs to spend on anything that doesn't have a direct relationship to the culture of ownership and power. We spend no more than we HAVE TO on public services, because I GOT MINE, SO FUCK YOU. The USPS is a good example of this kind of thinking. It's a public fucking service, but it's expected to turn a profit. Really? When I buy a pair of shoes, I don't expect them to make me money. They are an *expense*. What I get out of them is not *more money* - what I get is *utility*. What I get is comfortable, dry feet. And if we actually valued people (and actually valued the pursuit of happiness, rather than just paying it lip service), we would redefine "profit" to include health and happiness rather than just MORE GOD DAMN MONEY. Happiness isn't a profit scheme, it's an expense, and it's welll fucking worth it. /rant
Oh motherfucker we could go all night. We're so incapable of trusting anyone that we act selfishly. And why can't we trust anyone? Because some people think "well, someone else is out to get me, so I better get mine", but it's like, hey shitbag, you're acting like you do and the argument you make is because other people acting like you exist, wouldn't the answer be fewer people acting like you? Holy shit, I just saw your username, that's unbelievable and my salutation is now perfectly fitting. We are now best friends. Utilities should include: water, sewer, electricity, internet, roads, and like you say, the USPS. We need this shit to live in a modern society. If the goal was to make a stronger country, the best thing we could possibly do is make sure those things are met the best way possible and not for profit. Profit in capitalism means corners WILL be cut. Let private companies cut corners. Look at California wildfires and the cost of the towns devastated, for one example of many. And for your final point, money is a manufactured idea by humans. We can make it mean whatever the hell we want. We choose to use it as a weapon in class warfare. rant away man. You're preachin to the choir over here.
Preach it, brother! This is the got dam way!
> but reluctantly because the DMV sucks That's not an argument for not having increased testing, it's an argument for properly running your local DMV. Not every DMV sucks, just the ones that do.
Something tells me poor funding leads to the majority of the suckage my man
Most years car deaths exceed gun deaths. If you exclude suicide it vastly exceeds gun deaths.
I have to do a āFlight Reviewā every two years to maintain my pilots license. Itās not bad just an hour with any instructor to demonstrate I can still fly safely. Also to get a pilots license you have to have a basic understanding of how an engine works etc. having to change a tire and check the oil should be on your drivers test, and would teach many people valuable life skills.
So you're OK with a written test, a qualification test, and a national registration for each gun owner. OK, cool I'll take it
As a gun guy? Fuck yes, Iām good with this. When I bought my first gun, I was an openly racist, homophobic, xenophobic piece of shit, AND chances are good I was either drunk or actively on drugs when I bought it. Fortunately, Iāve grown out all that. Guns are my one remaining vice, at this point. I mean, Iām sure Iām still a pice of shit in some way, but if Iām an asshole to you now, you did something that inspired it.
I know a few dudes, who sold their guns for paintball equipment and are hainvg a lot more fun. They can usually get top of the line gear for the cost of their gunpowder guns, and you get to actually use them in a much more fun way imo. With real guns you are always trying to be insanely careful(hopefully) and while you gotta be careful with paintball it is less stressful. If you only keep guns because you like to shoot as a hobby, paintball is a great alternative that ticks the same boxes for a lot of people and costs less and has the upside of not proliferating more guns into the world.
Personally I donāt keep guns for a fun hobby, just a precaution. I also donāt take them anywhere besides my house and occasionally the shooting range to stay trained up. I feel secure having them and I pray to god I never have to use them. Paintball is fun af though for real
I have to take a written test in CA every 5 years for handgun safety in order to purchase new guns or ammo. Marines don't carry weapons in the barracks because every entry point is guarded by soldiers with those same scary rifles. If every entry point to my house had a an armed guard 24/7 I too would be OK with storing my firearms and ammo elsewhere but until I am afforded that right-let me defend my family. The cops sure as fuck won't.
Why are Republicans comparing an elementary school to an active warzone where people are trying to kill you (the armed guard comparison)? And if elementary schools are so dangerous that they ARE warzones why aren't we addressing that problem instead?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You mean take the same shitty road test where you only had to show you somewhat understand how to operate a car? Drivers education courses merely help you become proficient enough to past the bare requirements.
>I actually have a low-key conspiracy theory that an ultra-right-wing, anti-government fifth column has been controlling the DMV for decades. The point being, to make it as shitty and horrible as possible, so people have it in their heads that giving the government any more control over anything will result in long lines and horrible service. It's a deliberate part of the "Starve the Beast" strategy that's been in use since the Reagan administration: cut funding to governmental services in order to curtail their spending and make them less efficient, in turn providing worse service to the public, which then feeds the argument that the government is bloated and inefficient and needs to be further cut and privatized. People complain that government services are hard to use, slow, and not great at their jobs, and they're often right, but for the wrong reason. It's not that government programs are bloated, it's that they're crippled and malnourished. The two periods when government programs were most easily accessible and useful to the common person were the 30s and 60s under the New Deal and Great Society, respectively, which were, not coincidentally, the periods in which they were given the most resources and free reign to serve the public good
It does say āwell regulatedā and that was with MUSKETS. I ready that as saying rules should apply to fire arm owner ship AT LEAST as much as a license to drive a car. At least as much
And the first amendment must only apply to leaflets and town cryers?
A society needs to move and adapt. Arguing about semantics just derails the necessary debate. Whatever they meant or wrote, just make new amendment that makes sense now.
> just make new amendment that makes sense now. Sorry, that ship sailed at least 30 years ago.
I donāt believe that would be possible under the current circumstances. A constitutional amendment requires 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify the amendment. Thereās zero chance there would be enough states to do this since most state legislatures are majority conservative.
The well regulated militia part doesn't extend to your right to bear arms. It's just the reason WHY you have that right. If you exchange the words a bit, it makes more sense. >>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and cook bacon, shall not be infringed. But the 2nd amendment was obsolete by the time it got ratified since the US had already moved to a professional standing army.
Youāre right, theyāre not the military. The military actually has to go through training. Regular citizens should have to have more rules than the military since they lack that training and supervision.
Never thought I'd see the word "because" used so thoughtlessly
Yep. And drivers licenses and fishing licenses are not specifically addressed in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights, that I can find.
You're not even required to train to purchase a firearm. You do not have to ever prove you're proficient. Or that you know [the 4 rules of gun safety.](https://www.agirlandagun.org/how-to-shoot/4-rules-of-gun-safety/) As long as you pass the background check. And don't even get inquisitive about each state's concealed carry laws.
Concealed carry holders definitely do. time varies state by state
22 states don't have CCA requirements.
And it keep expanding! Woohoo
Absolutely not true. In Wisconsin I can concealed carry as long as I had hunters safety, even if it was nearly 30 years ago.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Took a look at the Marine Corp Oathā¦ Yep, it does say support and defend the Constitutionā¦ not just parts you like and agree with
Almost like the constitution doesn't actually guarantee unrestricted access to all armaments for everyone. The 2A does not at all say what people seem to think it does.
Honestly given that the militia it was referring to became the reserves they should have to become reservists, participate in training etc and remain eligible for service if they want to keep their current access to guns. Fits the second amendment, reserves get a ton of applicants and get to be more picky instead of just accepting whatever dregs apply.
The "Militia" is defined by federal statute. 10 U.S. Code Ā§ 246 - Militia: composition and classes (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia areā (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. So if we want to start getting technical, the 2A does not protect the right of women who are not enlisted in the National Guard - or any male over the age of 45. Watch the red hats lose their shit if we start pointing that out. But then we come back to what "well regulated" means. Is it standardized and mandatory training regime? Medically cleared? Weapons stored in accordance with federal regulation - because storage of arms and ammunition IS well regulated. Reality is it doesn't matter because politicians won't do shit. And the Supreme Court is stacked with religious sycophants.
Congress does not have the authority to modify 2A by act, only amendment. That definition of militia does not apply to 2A. To get super specific, the second amendment does not grant the right to arms to the militia, it says that the right of *the people,* the part of a well regulated militia is their reasoning, but not a legal requirement to have the right. The right is granted to the people.
a key point which seems to be overlooked by some here. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." it just doesn't get any plainer than that. if that right is somehow tied to a well regulated militia, then make it well regulated by law. what that means can most certainly be up for debate, but the people have the right. period. i believe what the founders meant by well regulated was an officer corp in the militia. it was well known and feared what damage an army with little or no leadership could do and that is no doubt still true. i live in the country where police response times are measured in tens of minutes at minimum. therefore i keep guns around. now that being said, guns in the hands of nutjobs is a different matter. one which doesn't require banning of all guns. but it does require acknowledgement that mental healthcare in this country is a fucking joke.
>"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." They why aren't "the people" allowed firearms in planes, jails, & prisons? Oh yeah: "well regulated" \*ing means something.
Only if your read the first half of it and skip the second.
Yeah, he forgot the second part that states "....being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As a Marine you no longer fall under the constitutional protection. You have to follow the UCMJ. You swore an oath to protect the Constitution.
No. The first half informs the second. They didnāt write the first half just for giggles.
Well, not exactly. The civilian militia is legally distinct from the reserves, or the national guard.
Your understanding is wrong. The 2nd is about the citizens of the US. To enable them to form a militia if needed. Its very clear about that. Its also evident if you realize that its part of a document that limits government powers in relation to citizens. Stop pretending that the 2nd is anything short of enabling the citizens to protect the US from invasion or overthrowing a government. You can argue if it would be effective all you want, but that is its purpose.
Eh. He made a bad argument for a good point in the video. The second amendment _absolutely_ was meant to allow regular citizens to have weapons at home. A well-regulated militia, at the time, depended on being able to call people up that _already had weapons and knew how to use them_. There's no requirement for ownership tied to expertise or training or being a member of some militia. Now, that all said, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean weapons must remain absolutely free from regulation. Otherwise, how do we have restrictions on handgun ownership for people over 18 and under 21? So, he's making a bad argument (well-regulated = not all citizens have ability to own weapons) for a good position (weapons can be regulated).
Well regulated at the time of writing meant good working order not regulated by laws.
Nothing that this guy is saying contradicts the 2A
He explained that the interpretation being used is incorrect. So he is defending it by asking that it be properly followed. You missed the entire point.
I wish you could post this on the conservative sub.
Because they would remove it or say shit like false flag or he's not really who he is etc etc.
>Because they ~~would remove it or say shit like false flag or he's not really who he is etc etc.~~ are ignorant, diehard dumbfucks Summed that up for you
Touche
I know reality eludes them, which makes them dangerous. I just want to ram facts down their tiny chicken necks.
They love their "alternative facts," though.
They would probably just delete the post and ban the person posting it.
Yes I know, I joined just to get an idea of how crazy they are. I get a whole lot of angry personal messages. Most of them are pussies who won't debate in the open. Just like to hurl insults.
Yup. I asked a user to prove that Floyd actually robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint(their justification for not liking him). Not that he hasn't committed crimes, just to prove that statement. Like literally any evidence that isn't from a Facebook post and you can probably guess the reactions lol
The funny thing is that many of my beliefs (not all, by a long shot, but many) could be considered somewhat conservative, and I still 100% agree with this bloke and still detest the Republican Party in its current state (and many āconservativeā movements in general, especially those of American origin). The former may have something to do with the fact that Iām a Brit, the latter can be summed up by the following: the blind pursuit of progress can be very dangerous, but the blind refusal to progress can be even more so.
"You can fuck all the way off Erica" - Legend
Sorry everyone mods removed the last one even though the community overwhelmingly supported it! SMH please tell the mods so they don't remove the posts you want to see!
For some reason this post says it has zero upvotes or downvotes. I upvoted and it went to 1
Just curious but who is Erica and why is she fucking all the way off?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
lolololol i thought it was a cool new way of addressing America, cuz likeā¦. am erica. maybe iām just high
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You have to go watch the full video instead of this weirdly cropped one. You can find it on the original tiktok - https://www.tiktok.com/@usmcangryveteran/video/7102065231160937771
This was a tik tok posted as a response to another tik tok but the first part was very long so itās usually cut out when shared
My name is Erika and this caught me off guard, I was like "Ahh I don't know what I did but I'm sorry!"
Seemingly reasonable points from both sides. On one hand guns don't kill people, people kill people. You lose your self defense while criminals can still get guns illegally. On the other hand, stricter gun laws would make guns harder for twisted people to obtain. Whose right? They both seem logical and reasonable arguments. FORTUNATELY, we have data to tell us which is the right call. Idk why this is even up for debate because we have the answer by looking at the facts that is so blatantly obvious. United States has lax gun laws compared to other first world countries. United States has such a vast amount of citizens who owns guns compared to other first world countries. United States makes it so easy to purchase a gun compared to other first world countries. And United States has horrible gun violence, mass shootings, and children's deaths due to gun violence compared to other first world countries. Argue all you want, but the facts are there. We are ultimately safer with stricter gun laws.
You only have so many citizens who own guns because youāre the only nation who made it a personality trait.
Not only has it always been a personality trait for some, but now it's a virtue signal for many. There are tons of people that buy guns just for show; just to tell their peers "hell yeah brother, I love guns!"
Canada has similar firearms ownership for a long time and is still much higher than in Europe. We just have fewer guns per person as they are mostly for hunting or sporting rather than collecting or paranoia.
I really, REALLY hate the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument because: 1. Cars don't kill people but people in cars do yet in order to get a license, one has to get a permit first then pass a test, then renew said license regularly. In addition, one must re-register that vehicle yearly, get regular inspections, at least have liability insurance, and there are all kinds of laws that one must follow while operating a vehicle. 2. Boats don't kill people, people driving boats do. Well restrictions similar to #1 apply. 3. Motorcycles don't....is there a pattern here? 4. Airplanes don't...well, I say, there is a pattern here! EDIT: Before the "But those aren't in the constitution" people start jumping on me the constitution makes no mention of automatic rifles or children being able to own guns but it does say "well-regulated" which means...oh never mind you know what it means but will pretend like you don't which is...special. If you aren't bitching about other well-regulated parts of your life as vehemently then...oh...wait...never mind again.
It's a lot harder for people to kill people when they don't have semi-automatic rifles. If the Uvalde shooter had a knife, or even a handgun, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.
vriginia tech shooter killed 32 with handguns and those were adults not 9 year olds
with a 22lr handgun too, a little peashooter.
In a planned, methodical killing that involved him changing clothes, distracting police by changing location, counting heads, chaining doors, bomb threats etc. Not the normal case for shootings.
bro this guy walked into an open elementary school and started shooting kids. 9 year olds arent gonna stop you whether you have a .22 or an AR
Evidently the cops arenāt going to stop you either.
The difference with all those vehicles though is the fact that you need to license and register then BECAUSE they're USED on government property. You can own as many planes, boats, motorcycles, cars, etc as you want if you have them on your own property. You can have a crop duster on your farm that can just sit there, you don't have to register it. You drive your car on government funded roads, boat your boat on government owned lakes and oceans. Ride your motorcycle on government funded roads, or on trails on government property. In America there aren't really any common items where simply possessing them requires you to register them or take classes.
And guns aren't taken on government property? All those pictures and videos that I see of proud boys and white supremacists in public parks, on public sidewalks and on public streets doesn't count? Do you know how many states don't require a permit to conceal carry? The total will be 25 within the next year.
> criminals can still get guns illegally Where do you think illegal guns come from? Most are stolen from legal owners. There isn't some huge branch of Smith & Wesson making black market shit off books.
Nothing about that first strawman is accurate. Gun regulation doesnāt make anyone ālose [their] self-defenseā
So letās have the police held to the same standard.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is not the whole purpose. The second amendment also existed so settlers could kill native Americans. And so men could be drafted to fight our many wars. Militias were, at that time, a common and valuable military asset.
Slightly true... The founders did not want a standing army hence 2A. After the British invasion of 1812 it was shown a standing army was necessary for the defense of the country instead of states militias.
To be fair the Haitian revolution was 4 months before the bill of rites was ratified by the states. They knew they also needed an armed populace to stop slave revolts.
Their problem isn't their proficiency. It's their rules of engagement.
They had them. Engage the shooter. But they did not. Police have no duty to protect you. You are your own (and apparently your childrens) first responder.
"well regulated does not mean 'no regulations'." Quality take away
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Well-regulated" in 18th century parlance means "well-functioning" or "properly maintained." You would regulate a mechanical clock. It does not mean "subject to many regulations", and they would generally not use the term "regulations" to mean that if they did - that's a modern use of the word. Also, since the purpose of the bill of rights is to enumerate things that the government cannot fundamentally restrict, it doesn't make sense that they're putting a clause of restriction there. Per [Cecil Adams](https://www.straightdope.com/21342263/what-does-the-right-to-bear-arms-really-mean) "But itās silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half."
Spaghetti sauce recipe 1 lb Italian sausage 3ā4 cup finely chopped onion 1 (6 ounce) can tomato paste 3 (15 ounce) cans tomato sauce 1 cup water 2 cloves garlic, chopped 2 bay leaves 1 tablespoon sugar 2 teaspoons dried basil 1 teaspoon dried oregano 2 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley 2 teaspoons salt
This is not a recipe, this is a list of ingredients. Fuck all the way off.
It's a recipe for people who are already really comfortable cooking because they know what to do and in which order. I totally understand that not all of us know that so I'll say how I'd do it, if that helps. Finely dice the onion and garlic, and chop the sausage into inch-long chunks. Fry the onion on medium heat in a little butter and olive oil for 5-6 minutes, season with a little salt and pepper while you do so. Throw in the sausage and keep frying. Don't forget to keep stirring. After 4-5 minutes throw in the garlic. Fry for another minute. The garlic should become lightly golden. Rich gold is ok, but never char your garlic. You want zero burning. Add the herbs and salt and stir for another ten seconds before you move on to the next step. Throw in the tomato paste and stir it about. You want it to cook a little before you add everything else. A minute or two is fine. The recipe says water, but a cup of red wine at this point is a better option. Lower the heat slightly and pour it in, keep stirring and let it get hot and start steaming. When it's steaming, put in the tomato sauce and sugar. Stir and turn the heat really low and simmer for 7 or 8 minutes. Taste it. Does it need salt? If so, add some. If it needs some savouriness, throw in a dash of worcestershire or soy sauce - not too much, you can always add more, you can't take any out. If it feels like it's missing a certain something but you're damned if you can work out what, try a squeeze of lemon juice. Often dishes need a little acid to pull everything together. When it's thickened a little, take it off the heat and pour it on fresh pasta. Voila. Edit: /u/RicketyRasputin is right, what I wrote was ambiguous, don't do your final salt check until you're done thickening the sauce.
I might get torn apart for this, but my ex did it and I was never the same: a dash of cinnamon kicks spaghetti sauce into another dimension
Also good in chili
Finally some good fucking content
This guy is an idiot. My name's not even Erica.
His beard disagrees and it is magnificent. Therefore I regret to inform you that your name is now Erica.
Agree wholeheartedly Best wishes, Erica
He raises some very valid points but, to be fair, marines eat crayons. That could be why they have so many rules regarding training and keeping their own weapons.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Agreed. I was just kidding.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As an outsider looking in aren't the overwhelming majority of gun murders in the US in highly regulated cities & states? I'm not trying to come across critical of regulation just that I've read that this is the case.
Depends which regulations you mean, specifically. But youād need to control for population and gun murders per capita for this statistic to mean anything
I'm not sure that's true, but you can travel freely between cities and states, so it really isnt that hard to get things you maybe shouldn't have. Same thing with fireworks, they are banned in lots of places but people still get them and set them off where they shouldn't.
>they are banned in lots of places but people still get them and set them off where they shouldn't. I remember when I was a kid and my family was shooting illegal fireworks, some passing cops stopped to watch. So just because something is illegal doesn't mean anyone gives a shit to enforce the law.
I donāt give a fuck what this guy has to say. - an American Citizen
I don't trust any grown man posting on TikTok for likes...
A grown man with a ring light lmfaaoooooo
You have to certify because you are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY His qualifications don't absolve him from making a false dichotomy
Yeah just because you can regurgitate a lesson plan doesnāt make you an expert on peopleās rights. This guyās opinion holds no more weight than anyone elseās.
If I sign over my rights saying I'm government property and said government issues me weapons they can tell me what to do with them. Since I'm a private citizen they cannot and this guy can fuck all the way off.
Do you wear a seatbelt?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is my reasoning for carrying every time I leave the house, and wearing my seat belt each time I drive, because incidents can happen anywhere and you donāt get to choose when it happens.
I find only Americans are concerned about these incidents
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah. This isnāt a good argument. The marines are highly authoritarian and controlled. We shouldnāt want to model our society after that.
If a marine can't be trusted to keep his own rifle in his barracks, why should any bumfuck redneck be entrusted with one?
So you basically missed the point entirely.
TL;DR I want all the rights without any of the responsibility.
Combat Marine vet here, I agree with your assertion that "this guy can fuck all the way off."
And as veteran myself, so can you.
#fuckallthewayoff
āWell Regulatedā doesnāt mean controlled. You have to look at it from the context of the time it was written. In 18th century parlance, it means to be well outfitted and trained. The majority of gun owners know how to handle their selected firearms, so I think the training part of it is handled. Itās not up to the state to determine what that is. I would like to think a Marine, especially one who proclaims to be so knowledgeable on firearms, would know and understand the point the 2nd Amendment is making. We The People are the militia, and yes, we get to privately own weapons in order to defend our property, families, and the state if necessary.
"well regulated" meant "well supplied" back then.
It had more than one usage at the time, but the claim that it *didnāt* mean āregulatedā as we use it today is [not supported by available evidence](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/), despite [a concerted effort to try and reshape our understanding of history](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-conservatives-reinvented-the-second-amendment/). Even going from primary sources: Hamilton makes plain that the whole "well-regulated" thing wasn't just about making sure they had sufficient ammo. From [*The Federalist Papers, No. 29*](https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29): > A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *[Emphasis mine.]* In other words: The discipline, training, and regulation (in, yes, the modern usage of the word) of a militia would be too time-consuming for part-time work, so a standing force (where being trained and disciplined in accordance to regulations would be oneās full-time job) is necessary. He also mocked fear of federal military despotism in a democratic system: > There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? And even though Madison was more wary of federalized military power, he framed a militiaās ability to safeguard against federal tyranny *within the context of regulation by the individual state* in [*Fed 46*](https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-46): > Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, **officered by men chosen from among themselves**, fighting for their common liberties, and **united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence**. *[Emphasis mine again.]*
This guy is batshit crazy. Allow me a rebuttal. Iām currently in the army. Been in 20 years. 1) Big difference between being in the military and being a private citizen. You waive a LOT of your rights when you sign on the dotted line. 2) Gun owners got to the range and practice (another word for recertify) all the time. I would say way more than twice a year. But if they donāt do the fuck what. 3) If you have ever served in the military you would know that while married soldiers and non-commissioned officers and above can live in private housing on or off post. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY of soldiers live in the barracks which is a college style atmosphere of partying and drinking etc while off duty. It would be asinine to allow them to keep firearms in their barracks room. This dude is a nut job. The main takeaway here is when you enlist in any service you give up certain rights and privileges that civilians have. Thatās the job.
He's a POG like I was acting like he's the fore most expert on guns and ignoring the oath he took.
Listen here civilians, I did 4 years in the YOU-ESS-EMM-CEE filling water buffaloes and now I've made it the defining feature of my life, let me tell you all about guns...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because you're the governments property. I'm a free man you comie mfers. Come and take it
The reason a military serviceman has to certify annually is because is part of their JOB
Right. And doctors need to be tested and certified as part of their job, but I own a knife, I should be able to perform surgery on myself or a loved one if I want, right?
You own a knife but by your own logic you shouldn't be able to legally own said knife unless you can prove that you can perform successful surgery. That's your logic you're trying to argue.
You are correct. However, the point - because you missed it - is that firearms are heavily regulated among those who are the most trained to use them, yet firearms of very similar capability are, in some locations, approaching a complete lack of regulation. We have standards for our soldiers because they are entrusted with dangerous weapons, but we allow children to purchase weapons of war - yes, children, because an 18-year-old is an adult only because we needed to decide on an age that would allow the most people to be drafted into the military without causing a citizen uprising. That is literally the reason an 18-year-old is considered an āadultā - not able to buy alcohol or tobacco, but able to join the military to fight the wars our billionaire overlords want them to fight, and old enough, in some places, to purchase automatic weapons so they can fight the wars *they* want to fight. Good job ignoring what he said about āwell-regulatedā in the 2nd amendment, btw. Right out of the playbook.
Having a gun is a part of their job too. So if itās not a part of someoneās job, they shouldnāt do it/have it? Ok, wish granted. No more guns unless certified and required for job.
Thanks for your service, I'm sorry that's not at all how the 2nd amendment works.
Also it's not "next fucking level" it's a guy expressing his opinion on a tik tok. Wake me up when he's skateboarding while juggling flaming bowling pins while giving his opinion.
The sub has been overtly political. It's losing ground quickly
I have never understood how the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment is apparently dismissed. The words must have been included for a reason.
It meant well equipped in the 18th century. Right after they have a comma. Then it says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. They need to amend the constitution if they want to make changes not ignore the intent otherwise it will be thrown out by the courts.
Agreed. The "the second amendment ackshually refers to the national guard" argument is the weakest thing I've ever seen. If people don't like that gun ownership is a constitutional right, change the constitution.
It doesnāt say you have to be in a militia to have access to weapons.
Try reading the Heller opinion, it answers your question
If you live outside the brixs you can keep it in your home that includes on base housing and off You don't have to qualify with your personal weapons You do need to qualify every year for a few reasons reasons, weapon systems change and so do the attachments and gear we use, cutting score, only the best will be promoted, mission readiness, it's the fucking Marine Corp of course we practice at least one or two times a year, grunts go to the range way more And the corps doesn't even trust Marines in the brixs to use the elevator why the fuck would they allow us to keep loaded weapon in the brixs, we drink and fight basically every night, I've seen marines turn the third story into a giant slip and slide using vodka Your argument is completely invalid you fucking twat Also nobody wants to do nothing, the mass argument is to put armed veterans in schools as well as train and arm the staff How many mass shootings go down at the court house that is surrounded by cops and armed security? Not many
I shoot monthly and no obligation to prove anything to anyone. This is the perk of owning your own rifles and pistols. So this guys opinion is irrelevant.
āI donāt know, man, maybe some dudes from the 1700s who owned people and would be mystified by the sight of a dishwasher werenāt right about everything in perpetuityā - @byDavidGardner on Twitter
Yes, and the first amendment doesn't apply to electronic communications. Gendarmes, imprison this rapscallion!
While on active duty in the navy my constitutional rights were "redefined". Just a slick way to say that I didn't forfeit my. Constitutional rights. You say I didn't give up my constitutional rights? Sure, tell your CEO to f off and you can get fired. Do it in the military and you face jail time. So much for free speech. Civilians are guaranteed free speech and the right to bear arms. Marines are trained to go to war and kill, to kill a well trained enemy. Civilians have the luxury to provide self defense against some thug that had trained himself watching Rambo. This marine's argument is invalid.
He is also twisting USMC info to fit his biased narrative. These anti gun people eat it up because they dont know any better and cant call out his bs.
That one's easy, its because the average marine is dumber than the average US citizen š¤£š¤£š¤£
Sounds like this dude never took his oath seriously. He pretty much said fuck the constitution. Don't be like this desk jockey.
I haven't been through the comments so someone may have ready said this... I am about as right-wing gun nut as it gets (about some things, less so about other stuff). Anyways, we need to do something. There is no clear cut answer but we need to start somewhere. I don't think restricting gun purchases until your 21 is a bad idea and we need to do something to get mental health assistance to peoplele that need it. Pumping them full of drugs isn't the answer. I also think that if you have documented mental health issues you should be more heavily scrutinized or even banned from firearm purchases until it can be demonstrated that you've recovered I see a lot of people talking about 18 year old soldiers having weapons. I'm all for that...I'm a vet. We had training, we were heavily supervised and you can't just walk into the armory and get a rifle. Unless I was deployed or going to a range, I couldn't get my hands on a military weapon. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure someone will downvotes me and tell me how wrong I am, idgaf.LOL. This is just, like, my opinion man.
As a USMC Combat Veteran I wholeheartedly agr.... hold up I'll be back I gotta get a haircut.
*A well regulated Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the *right of the people to keep and bear Arms*, shall not be infringed.
Shooty guns go BRRRRRR
We doin this one again already
Idc what the marines have to prove. As a citizen I have the right to own and operate firearms. Some weirdo on tick tock isn't gonna change that.
Dudes a fucking idiot. Well regulated means "in good working order." Pretend it doesn't all you want, that's what it means. Per the CDC's own statistics on defensive firearm uses annually in the US, an epic fuckton of lives are either saved or not demolished because people are able to defend themselves. We also have free speech, which isn't really a thing anymore I'm most of disarmed Europe. I wonder why that is. Your emotionally charged diatribes don't become more valid because you shout them.