Up until this weekend, I wasn't sold on banning semi-auto weapons ( when I say semi-autos, I am referring to what many call "assault weapons" e.g. A-R15s, AK47s etc.) , but that has changed in light of the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings. Note that I am a conservative and a Trump supporter.
Look, I get that the vast majority of people that own semi-autos are responsible people, but honestly I don't think your "fun" shooting them is worth continuing to see mass shootings.... these are NOT hunting weapons.
To address some common counter arguments:
-
"They'll just obtain them illegally; it only hurts people that follow the law" -- how many of you ACTUALLY know where you can illegally obtain a semi-auto weapon? Unless you're from the hood this is highly unlikely - and quite frankly the mass shooters aren't from the hood, they're primarily from the suburbs.
-
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" - well yes, but you're giving them SUCH as easy way of doing so.,. they really don't have any obstacles when it comes to buying a semi-auto in most places. Yes, they could make a bomb - but that is much harder obtain than walking into a store and it also isn't half as easy to carry out IMO. You could also point to the use of trucks/cars as another option for carrying out such an attack - it's easy, but its also not as lethal as someone walking into a store with hundreds of rounds of high caliber bullets. At the end of the day, the common theme in these mass shooting is the use of a semi-auto weapon
-
"but look at the Cali shooting - they have some of the strictest gun laws in the county" ... well he had to drive what like
You didn't even make a point with number one. You just stated the argument and said that law-abiding citizens don't know how to obtain something illegal....because they're law-abiding citizens.
Do you know where to obtain an illegal semi auto?
Just buy it second-hand from some acquaintance? Guns aren't usually a taboo subject to talk about in a lot of areas.
As a conservative as well, I'd like to ask the gun owners as well, do we really need AR-15's and other semi-automatic long rifles in our society? Asking from a purely non-political perspective, but more from a logical and rational perspective.
Personally, I believe that these "military" type weapons aren't necessary and don't serve a legitimate purpose in today's world. I mean at the end of the day, what do people actually use these guns for? Sure you might go to the shooting range every now and then, but realistically, aren't these guns just hobbies?
I am all for civil liberties and freedoms, but at what point do we recognize that these tools are being used to hurt people? At what point do we actually do something? Has there been an instance where a bystander has actually stopped an armed gunman with an AR-15? From my knowledge in those instances it was a conceal carry user that took action.
But again, trying to avoid the political here, just curious as to know what some of the rational arguments behind the necessity of these guns are.
No one stops a gunman with a big weapon, because no one carries around a big weapon.
While I agree something needs to be done, I disagree with an outright ban and disagree with your points. While this is certainly horrible, why don't Democrats talk about this after the weekly shootings in Chicago? 7 were killed and 46 wounded this weekend in Chicago. While part of it is that these acts were clearly domestic terrorism and gang violence isn't, part of it is also because it plays into their agenda. ~2.5-3k people per year are shot in Chicago alone.
1-4) Yes, there will likely be more fatalities with these weapons, but pistols can also do a ton of damage. Figuring out how to build crude bombs in the age of the internet is not hard. You see this and driving vehicles in Europe. Their fatality numbers when used are not even close to 0. If you ban these weapons outright, then these nutjobs will start using pistols or other weapons. Then we'll need to ban those. 5) Individually, this is obviously true. It seems ridiculous if you only look at the last 50 years of history. But if you roll it back even 100 years, this is not true. What if the Russians or Jewish people were better able to defend themselves? Even the possible threat of guns could have an impact. What if Hong Kong or Russia today had a similar level of gun ownership? Would China and Russia be pulling what they are?
I agree with your Chicago point, the mainstream media only ever paints this picture when there's been a traumatic event. It does bother me that these politicians only ever comment on these issues when it can be used to further their platform conveniently. Like what about the countless number of people involved in shootings on a day to day basis? If they really cared, why aren't they representing those people as well?
Mass shooting are not the norm, they're the exception. However, the media likes to frame this issue as an epidemic. But still, no one should ever have to be worried that something like this might happen, but the reality is, is that we just need to remain vigilant all the time.
Re: your last paragraph. That's partly the intent of these shootings. Setting aside the fact that these are mentally ill individuals who could believe all sorts of things, some/most of the intent is to terrorize. While obviously scary, people will spend much more time worrying about being in a similar situation in the future, even though they are ~1,000x more likely to die in a car crash.
The takeway here is to stop picking sides and make up your own mind. Whether Democratic talking points support it or not, you are allowed to be simultaneously anti-mass shooting AND anti-gang shooting.
We should realize the end goal is to protect people's lives. It's in our Constitution- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, the others are meaningless.
The reason no one talks about Chicago is because everyone knows conservatives don’t give a fuck about black people so any efforts to ban guns on the back of “well black people are dying in Chicago” isn’t going anywhere.
This is so false it's stunning. This is the only response a liberal can have though, so I don't blame you. It's much easier to claim racism than to call out those who are committing evil, especially when they are a crucial segment of your voting base.
If you truly believe that gang violence can't be helped because conservatives don't care about black people, you really lack an ability to think critically. Part of the problem is that the inner cities are incredibly liberal - they are all run by Democrats, who do nothing to protect those they represent because it's politically inconvenient.
You'd be exactly right if only Illinois was a red state.
I'm not sure what your point is. Democrats don't talk about it because they are already supportive of more restrictive gun laws. When it happens in a state where national and local politicians believe that the toddlers in pre-school should be carrying weapons to fight off the bad guys, folks on the left point out that liberal gun ownership laws allow for tragedies like this to happen more easily, because the people meant to be representing the best interest of those constituents offer their thoughts and prayers and continue stuffing NRA cash into their pockets.
Moreover, a majority of the guns being fired in Chicago don't actually come from Chicago, or even Illinois. I know the city did a study a few years ago that found that only about 40% of recovered firearms came from Illinois. And again, this is another reason left leaning politicians and advocates are so up in arms about the issue (couldn't help myself there) - a plurality, if not a majority, of guns being used to kill people in blue cities are coming from red states with laxer gun laws. It's not just a state by state issue when thousands of Chicagoans are being murdered with weapons purchased out-of-state
I'm only saying that it's politically expedient. Each party just wants quick wins without coming up with any real solutions.
Didn't he specify that he meant assault weapons? I think you're focusing on crime that is more focused when you talk about LA and Chicago, rather than a mass shooting. I feel like a gunfight in a low income neighborhood is not the same as what happened last weekend. They're separate problem. And while it is a mental health problem, it also is a gun problem. If you can find a way to screen people perfectly for this stuff witha 100% accuracy rate to allow people to have ARs and not carry out mass shootings, be my guest, but like if another person has to die because you're wrong, then the problem is still there.
This is bullshit. The real problem is guns.
Do ALL OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES on the chart not have mental health issues? Because all of the other countries on the chart, all of which are in the lower left quadrant except for the United States and Yemen, have stricter gun laws and fewer guns and thus, fewer mass shootings.
This too is completely void of any critical thinking whatsoever.
Cars serve a purpose beyond killing. Guns don't. It is not difficult to tell the difference.
You are allowed to be anti-mass shooting and anti-gang violence. In short, that makes you anti-shooting, which should be a pretty common point of view.
The latter part of your post is disingenuous. Everyone is anti-mass shooting and anti-gang violence. Peoples' point is you never hear about the latter. While we do have a mental illness and ease of access to guns issue, people correctly point out that mass shootings are used as political tools (by both parties). You hear outrage for a couple days, and then everything goes back to normal.
Guns are not created to make mass killing easier. >99.9% of guns owners buy guns for hunting, the shooting range, and/or for protection.
Have you ever heard of Kennesaw, GA?
I am also a conservative but abhor "mental illness" as a crutch being used as an excuse on this topic. Not every mass-murdering criminal has "mental illness". The El Paso shooter drove across the state to shoot up a Wal-mart, when presumably he could've very easily just have gone to the border to shoot up migrants, but clearly the border is heavily armed so he probably woukd've gotten wasted within the first 10 seconds of firing his first round. This "mentally ill" person must've also been highly calculative... There must be a ton of "mentally ill" people living in the Middle East.... I wonder why we didn't invest into curing middle east mental illness but rather engaged in 2 decade-long wars to fight these mentally ill terrorists who mass-murdered New Yorkers.
You must be joking. If I want to drive a car, I need to take a multi-part test to get a license. I am obligated to have insurance in case of an accident. How about that, huh? Maybe some of those things should be part and parcel of gun ownership. If my son steals my gun and murders 30 people, I should have insurance to at least begin to make amends. If I want to buy a gun, maybe I should be required to take a written and practical test showing i know how to use it.
I have mental health problems and never in my life would I shoot a gun, never mind commit a mass shooting - same goes for all my other depressed friends. So no, it is not "a mental health issue." Don't get mad over the issue being generalized to 'a gun thing' and then do the exact same thing under a different guise.
deleted
I've made your 5th point on this site before and you'd be surprised how much pushback it got. Anyhow, I agree with your overall premise but there are two main problems with it:
The second amendment exists and there is no getting around that. To implement anti-gun measures that would actually be effective, we would need a constitutional amendment. This isn't impossible, but it's certainly more difficult than getting basic legislation passed. One would think that after Sandy Hook, there would have been a push for actual change, but we as a culture decided that the slaughter of kids was acceptable instead, and some even pretended like it was a hoax. If that didn't incite action...
Your 4th point is misguided. An overwhelming amount of gun violence involves pistols. Over 50% of all gun deaths and injuries are pistol-related, not rifle-related, "assault weapon" or not. AR-15s look scary, but hand guns are the real killers in America.
I agree with your points. However, if Democrats were to focus on #2, they'd have to go after the guns in inner cities and address typically minority-on-minority crimes. This is politically unpalatable, so they won't do this. It's easier to go after AR-15s.
Is it? Are people pro-inner city violence? I don't think so.
Actually this isn't totally true. I mean, you read the Second Amendment and it couldn't be clearer that there isn't some unrestricted right to gun ownership, that it exists within the context of a "well ordered militia". Several decades of intelligent use of the courts by gun activist organizations like the NRA has changed that meaning to allow anyone with a pulse to purchase firearms. Totally legal, but also quite calculated. Nothing says liberals cannot change that back (aside from not having the same focus as Republicans on stuffing the lesser courts than SCOTUS), without a Constitutional amendment. Especially since conservative judges seem pretty committed to gutting stare decisis in general, anyway
I am glad to see conservatives coming around to the fact that we need common sense gun reform. I have no interest in arguing this issue on this forum with bad faith actors (whaddabout Chicago?! You can't even define semi-automatic!) for the umpteenth time, as it's too emotional for me and so few people are open to changing their mind. I just plan to donate massive sums, canvass, and help to vote Republicans out of office next year.
I do wonder why now. OP mentions he wasn't open to banning semi-autos until the El Paso and Dayton shootings. Why not after Sandy Hook? Las Vegas? Pulse Nightclub? Stoneman Douglas? Sutherland Springs? This is a geniune question, I'm curious what is the tipping point for people on such a contentious issue.
At least give people the benefit of the doubt. It's like "why did you wait until 2019 to become a vegan? Animals were murdered for your whole life." OK, some people react differently to different news. For some it's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Personally I believe the back-to-back nature of these events is pretty powerful. There was no time to recover.
People are allowed to change their minds without being crucified for their historical beliefs (look at what people are doing to Biden and Kamala). The "flip flopping" argument is insane, if someone gathers evidence and changes their mind, that's evidence of a working brain.
Of course. I was a staunch conservative in my early 20s. Nothing wrong with changing your mind based on new information and life experience. My question was genuine as I said. I'm honestly curious. "This time feels different", but of course we said that after Sandy Hook and Stoneman Douglas too.
Used assault rifles and automatic sub machines when I was in the marines. Why a private citizen in a first world country is allowed to own these is beyond me.
To the mental health problem - I've lived in Norway and Sweden, both have relatively high gun ownership and serious mental health problems, yet mass shootings are extremely rare (can only think of one in Norway in 2011).
More "good guy with a gun" fantasies I see.
Not at all, I have the right to defend myself and my family its really that simple. Run, hide, fight in that order but I cant fight if my rights are stripped from me.
This is way simpler then you all make it out to be. I'm a human being and therefore born with unalienable rights one of which includes the right to self defense in any means I see fit and the actions of other don't make my rights any less unalienable.
Yeah that's simply not the case. You don't have an unalienable right to defend yourself "in any means you see fit."
My childrens' right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness trumps your right to own a killing machine. To think the Founding Fathers would have written the 2nd amendment "as is' if they could have envisioned technology allowing white supremacists to kill 20 people in minutes is asinine.
Today, instead of blaming guns for gun violence, our President took a page out of the Tipper Gore playbook and blamed video games while explicitly pointing out that guns are not the problem.
Maybe we'll get a new rating system on Call of Duty. That'll fix the problem!
deleted
This is always an awful discussion. Most of the people against owning guns have never held one. I assume most people here live in a big city and aren't in an environment where gun ownership is the norm. Regardless, this argument usually results in belief inconsistently.
"Don't criminalize drugs. They will be gotten through the black market and result in more violence overal"
"Don't ban abortion, Women will still have them and it will be more dangerous"
"Oh, but for guns? Ban all of them. Clearly, criminals will never be able to acquire them and crime in America will cease to exist."
Or, the antithesis of your argument which highlights the absurdity of the GOP platform:
Birth control? BAN IT! Abortion? BAN IT! Gay marriage? BAN IT! Illegal immigration? BAN IT! Common sense gun control? Look, banning things never works. People will still find a way to get them.
"MY OPINION IS FACT AND THAT'S FINAL! EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG AND I'M GOING HOME!"
On the other hand, I live in a big city (in the South no less, talk about gun ownership), hunted when I was a kid, and own a 30-06 still even though I don't use it much. AR-15s are fun as shit to shoot.
The problem is that they, and handguns, and all other semi-automatic weapons make violence far too easy to execute at a mass scale. Them "being fun" isn't an acceptable counterargument.
Further, I agree that the arguments you framed expose a hypocrisy typical on both sides of the political spectrum, but in this case specifically the left. Still, those are hardly the only arguments against criminalizing drugs and banning abortion, and I would argue they are minor arguments in the general scope of those issues.
Finally, banning certain guns will undoubtedly not eliminate crime, but it is completely disingenuous to pretend that it would not still be an incredible step. One only has to look to England and Australia to see prime examples. Yes, crime still exists, but mass shootings have plummeted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49027178
guns aren't the problem
Who said "ban them all" lmao? This is a discussion about assault weapons, such as AR, AK, and other similar platforms.
To those in favor of keeping asault weapons available, what other solutions can you put forth that will tangibly impact the insane mass shooting craze that is going on in this country? Obviously a drastic decrease in accesibility to military grade firearms would not solve it completely, but it would definitely be a good start. We can lie to ourselves and say that it is just a mental health problem, or an issue with how exposed young kids are to violence, or how easy it is to become involved with hate groups, etc, and this might make us feel better about our guns, but the fact is that guns are a huge part of the problem, and pretending that they are not doesn't make the problem go away.
A lot of people agrue that a prospective shooter could just buy the guns illegally. I actually do not believe that is the case, and very rarely were the firearms used in these types of shooting obtained in an illegal manner. Have you ever bought a gun illegally? Neither have I, but I know people who have both sold and bought them on the street level, and it is not as easy to find, approach, and complete a transaction with these people as you think. I don't see some deranged kid being able to seek out and approach an arms dealer, and I also don't see a dealer selling to them for obvious reasons. Placing laws of transactions between friends and relatives could also help limit accessability to these types of weapons.
A lot of people also argue that the majority of those who own these weapons use them for hunting/target shooting/self defense. I find these weapons unnecessary for all three of these. First of all, if you use a fuckin AKM for hunting, you suck. It is wildly unfair and there is no sport in it, and if you love gunning down Bambi with your 30 round mag, then you need help. Second, for target practice, either A) suck it up, yeah sorry if you enjoy this but people's lives are more important and B) just have ranges that rent out these weapons. Third, I know the self/home defense concept is a tough one, even though I kinda find it to be BS in most cases, but I tend to think shotguns and pistols are better if you are serious about this.
Regarding one of the core principles of the second amendment, which is the whole being able to stand up to government oppression, a lot of people say that an armed populace would be able to strike fear in government forces and take control from them. I really doubt this, and even if these forces would be afraid of some surprise attack, they had experience dealing with exactly this in two recent wars. And yes, they would have armor, air support, and superior training. The armed populace would lose, period. I really don’t see how this is up for debate. I have shot plenty of guns (my dad has a hi-power and an ithaca 37--yes, it can be slam fired), yes they are fun and do serve a purpose. However, to the gun owners defending their rights, what is more important: your right to own and access these weapons or the lives of people you have never met?
Jim Jeffries has a hilarious bit about this exact point.
https://vimeo.com/219338338
Hahaha thanks for this. Histerical and mad accurate.
Dude, say what you’d like about what should be banned and what shouldn’t, I have no issue with that, but it is flat out wrong to say rifles aren’t useful against government forces.
Small arms like rifles are EXTREMELY good at deterring any sort of armed force, even an advanced and well funded one. You mention US forces having extensive combat experience from two wars - why do you think that is? It’s because their enemy was well armed - sure they had IED materials but the key to their insurgencies are rifles like the AK47. We see time and again how strong an armed populace can be even when invaded by a superior force.
There is no way whatsoever that the actual US armed forces, even if they all somehow decided they would oblige whatever leader in power, could subjugate millions of Americans armed with rifles. They couldn’t do in Iraq or Afghanistan and they couldn’t do it here.
Look at almost any insurgent war of the 20th or 21st centuries. The reason these mass shootings are so bad is BECAUSE of how effective these tools are at mass carnage - this power doesn’t go away because the opposition is the army.
Maybe you're right but that is a problem we will likely never encounter. Plus I don't like my odds bringing a gun to a drone fight. Do you see any scenario where literally every armed American unifies against our government? Nah. Like I do respect the argument and love that quote from that Japanese general who said if you invade the US there "would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" but I just see any of these things being way too unrealistic. Plus I will add, my friends who served in direct combat were much more fearful of IEDs, rockets and snipers than they were of standard armed insurgents. I would argue that the key to making an insurgancy deadly is not a gun/bomb/or even the ideas they stand for, but rather their ability to blend in with the population, contrasted against soldiers who clearly stand out.
Your comment on number 1 is most centaintly not true. There are a lot more people/dealers who can access and sell drugs than those who can access and be willing to see a firearm. It's a different circle entirely. Sure some drug dealers can probably get a gun but if I talk to anyone I know who sells blow/molly/weed, I guarantee you none of them are packin, let alone are willing/able to get or sell a gun. Additionally, arms dealing has a much larger risk than selling blow or whatever, and an arms dealer who is linked to a crime faces a hefty sentence. Not a lot of people are OK with that risk, and those who are can be particular about who they sell to. Some fuckin high school kid or delusional suburban dad lookin mf would probably not be a safe bet for them.
The 3D pinting thing is kinda scary, on a side note.
While I am in complete agreement that something should be done, I still cannot see how strictly banning semi-automatic "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 style rifle would make a large movement in reducing mass shootings. When the intimidating looking AR-15 style rifles are banned, you still have semi-automatic hunting rifles such as Browning's BAR series. These rifles may look a lot less intimidating with wood stocks, and a longer barrel; they can do just as much damage as the AR-15 when equipped with iron sights or a short-range sight and an extended magazine. Hell, in these small spaces where lots of the more deadly mass shootings happen a 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun can do just as much damage. In addition to this, you can take a regular 9mm pistol, extend the barrel, fit a stock on to it and you effectively have an AR-15 that would likely be excluded in any possible legislation passed to ban AR-15 style rifles.
With all of that said, I am definitely open to the idea of more gun control and the regulation of AR-15 style rifles whatever that may be. I go hunting quite often and using an AR-15 for any hunting purpose really is extremely unfair and even impractical unless your goal is to control an animal population like hogs. However, even if you do want to get rid of hogs you can simply use another semi-automatic hunting rifle like I previously mentioned, and it is just as effective.
I take most issue with your fourth point. You say you don't want to ban hand guns, but why not? Glocks, M1911s, and most other pistols are semiautomatic and have as much killing capability as rifles. You say there's not much of a push to ban these, but that's a very short-term view. After the mass-killings begin to subside (which, they won't although they may decrease), then the media will have to find new murder porn.
The new murder porn will be our inner cities, where the vast majority of murders are committed, and most are committed with handguns. That will be the next target for gun-control activists. Do you really think it will end at ar-15's???
Would respond to your other points but I don't have all day. Not gonna turn in my ar-15 btw
Obviously, semi automatic weapons (assault weapons used in mass shootings) should be banned. Unfortunately, our politicians do not have the courage to take the steps necessary to make this happen. Money flows from people who support the NRA into the pockets of politicians. Politicians tend to vote based on who gives them money.
I am glad to see that some conservatives are becoming more concerned about the gun culture in the United States. It is far too easy for people to buy guns including semi automatic weapons.
I realize that the average age on this forum is on the young side with with most of the WSO participants not having any kids. Beyond the obvious pain and suffering experienced by the people who witness a mass shooting, its broader impact can be devastating as well, especially for kids. Anxiety levels at schools are on the rise to the point where some kids are afraid to go to school. It is very unfortunate that children today have to experience this crap. School is suppose to be a kid's safe place. Today, kids have to do shooter drills and learn how to prepare for the next mass shooting
Banning automatic weapons would be a start but we need to do much more.
Is there any way we can actually get something going like a petition? I feel like such discussions are made for 1 week after mass shootings and then they just die away until the next mass shooting. But something really needs to be done at a congressional level for real this time.
A petition isn't going to accomplish much
The second amendment:
"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"
I love how conservatives are all "you can't take my guns away ever" but then completely disregard the first half of the amendment that states there will be a well-regulated Militia.
Fine, you want to bear arms? You should be a member of Militia. We already have the National Guard, which replaced Militias, so why not let's propose public entity Militas that have standards comparable to the Military? And since it's not funded by public funds, then members of these Militias have to self-fund their organization, but they're highly regulated in the same sense as other industries.
I would consider having a CCW as enough to be considered part of a militia, and (well i don't necessarily agree) I've seen the argument that by having a ccw you are morally responsible to fight back in a mass shooting situation as you are part of a militia
I don't believe a full-scale ban of "assault-style" weapons is even feasible. There are millions of these registered weapons already in circulation, one could only imagine what the actual number is. As an example, good luck getting enough ATF agents to sign-up for a no knock raid in Montana, where there's probably some dude waiting with his MG42.
I empathize with those who have lost loved ones to such tragedies, I personally can't even fathom the notion. However, I don't see a federal ban on these weapons happening in my lifetime.
That's like saying we shouldn't ban fentanyl or heroin for public use and access because it's widely in circulation. Now drugs are a different issue but everyone can agree some of the most dangerous drugs do not belong highly accessible to the public and there should be punishments to discourage circumventing those laws.
So you could ban long rifle assault weapons of war. Sure there may be some in circulation, but if you face 10-year prison sentences, you sure as hell would be an idiot to circumvent that law because "herp derp I'm protecting myself from Gov't (that has vastly superior firepower than my AK47)
Heroin might just be the worst example to use as a rebuttal, considering that it is illegal, but still responsible for the current epidemic.
I don't think you fully understand the gravity of such an undertaking. Actually, if you feel so strongly about it, be my guest and attempt to separate these people from their firearms. I can assure you, it won't be pretty at all.
Would I love to live in a gun-free society where no one is harmed? Sure. Unfortunately, it's a utopia.
I agree with both points here. I do think there should be some sort of restriction on these guns. I prison sentence would make many just give it up (or maybe gov't buyback? idk). However, I really can see some wackos out there just waiting to use their precious guns against the "evil lib gubment".
Many hurdles in the history of the United States were once thought to be impossible to get past. When enough people want to create change, it can be done.
I agree, a massive cultural shift would be required to achieve the OP's goal.
America’s cultural fascination with owning guns is truly a strange thing to me. You won’t find it anywhere else in the world.
Also, the argument that gun control won’t work because some people will find a way to break the law is absurd. People find ways to break every law (drugs, murder, illegally immigrating, embezzlement). The point of the law is to make it more difficult. America’s the only country where it’s this easy to access powerful guns, and it’s also the only country with constant mass shootings (in particular, by people who purchased their guns legally).
I know one of the fall-backs for many gun rights advocates is the Constitution and the will of the Founding Fathers. But hell, the Founding Fathers were just people prone to occasional error like the rest of us, the right to bear arms was specifically conditioned (“necessary for a well-regulated militia”), and the late 1700’s were a very different time. If you think everything the Founding Fathers did was correct and beyond questioning, you might as well try getting around everywhere in a horse and buggy and owning other people as property and see how that goes.
Qui illo molestiae aliquam deleniti saepe asperiores. Et omnis earum ullam ipsa vitae minus vel.
Officia doloremque et sed corrupti voluptas sunt voluptatum. Quis quo sunt tempora id.
Sint doloribus ratione nobis repellendus sunt aperiam. Deleniti et cupiditate molestias nam. Asperiores laborum ullam necessitatibus et velit veritatis quos. Veritatis dolor velit culpa ut illum id. Aliquid in dolorem nemo voluptas iusto. Ipsa ratione repellendus et quidem voluptates voluptatibus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Animi libero ipsa fugiat molestiae cupiditate. Dolorem non autem dignissimos et recusandae. Commodi animi id non architecto. Beatae tenetur ea ex corrupti deleniti quidem qui.
Natus quia porro expedita rem. Suscipit eos adipisci autem sed facere. Mollitia natus et ducimus minus vero voluptatem impedit. Vel quasi eligendi aut. Eligendi modi id minima libero magni.
At illo corporis rem error asperiores iure blanditiis. Velit consequatur enim omnis reiciendis. Consequatur ea consequatur culpa doloribus rerum. Sunt alias quaerat velit dolorum ut saepe.
Libero totam asperiores fugit aut rem. Voluptatem ea quia vitae saepe reiciendis hic. Consequatur provident nam repellendus quod aliquam architecto et provident. Tenetur harum suscipit aut aut ea qui voluptatem. Magni nulla ipsum deserunt est consectetur.