- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 8,521
- Reaction score
- 37,469
What does gun control mean and represent to you?
I don't doubt that many of the ordinary citizens who advocate for it do so with the best of intentions. But for me, it is fundamentally the de facto enabling of authoritarian government actions (large scale) and violent criminals (small scale) by depriving the liberty of law-abiding citizens from exercising what I consider a fundamental human right and one that is also an explicitly enumerated Constitutional right in the United States. It strips the legal backing and means of people to protect their person, family, and property. It is utterly indefensible, intolerable, and unconscionable on every conceivable level.
Contrary to popular (and defeatist) belief of some Ameribros, 2A rights have not been increasingly infringed upon and restricted in the 21st century where the law is actually concerned. In fact, they have expanded if anything, at least where keeping and bearing firearms for the explicit purpose of self-defense is concerned. This is not to say there hasn't been a large effort or perpetual threats made from activist groups and government officials to do so. They are just simply losing, and they need to keep losing indefinitely -- on local, state, and federal levels alike.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to the Second Amendment. The ruling struck down the Sullivan Act, a 1911 New York state law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show "proper cause" or "special need". Expanding on the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the court ruled that the Second Amendment also protects an individual's right to carry a firearm in public for the purposes of self-defense.
I don't doubt that many of the ordinary citizens who advocate for it do so with the best of intentions. But for me, it is fundamentally the de facto enabling of authoritarian government actions (large scale) and violent criminals (small scale) by depriving the liberty of law-abiding citizens from exercising what I consider a fundamental human right and one that is also an explicitly enumerated Constitutional right in the United States. It strips the legal backing and means of people to protect their person, family, and property. It is utterly indefensible, intolerable, and unconscionable on every conceivable level.
Contrary to popular (and defeatist) belief of some Ameribros, 2A rights have not been increasingly infringed upon and restricted in the 21st century where the law is actually concerned. In fact, they have expanded if anything, at least where keeping and bearing firearms for the explicit purpose of self-defense is concerned. This is not to say there hasn't been a large effort or perpetual threats made from activist groups and government officials to do so. They are just simply losing, and they need to keep losing indefinitely -- on local, state, and federal levels alike.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to the Second Amendment. The ruling struck down the Sullivan Act, a 1911 New York state law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show "proper cause" or "special need". Expanding on the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the court ruled that the Second Amendment also protects an individual's right to carry a firearm in public for the purposes of self-defense.
Last edited:
