• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    Let me make sure I’ve got what you’re saying correct:

    Banning or heavily regulating guns that people already legally own, guns that have been widely considered a constitutional right for >75 years, is not the same as “taking your guns”, is that correct? Would it be fair to say that they only thing you would consider to be “taking your guns” would be house-to-house confiscation of all firearms in private hands?

    In re: bump stocks - it turns out that a lot of people that purchased them (and forced reset triggers, which are a similar concept) got letters from the ATF telling them that they had to turn them in or destroy them. Because, see, the ATF could just force the companies that sold them to disclose customer records, which means yeah, they could come to your door and take it. Unless you paid cash at a gun store, there’s an electronic trail, and the ATF followed it for a whoooooooole lot of people. Continuing to keep one that you purchased legally at the time? That’s a felony, because the ATF has re-classified them as machine guns, which means you can’t own one since they were produced post-ban, and there’s no way to make it legal. (Currently, there’s an appeals court that has ruled the ban illegal, but we’ll have to see how that plays out.)

    • highenergyphysics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you genuinely and unironically thought bump stocks and pistol-ARs weren’t going to have a reckoning, you are the perfect example of why we need to start taking guns away from conservatives.

      Every good old boy knows a fascist making ghost guns in their garage.

      Quit your fucking pathetic 2A pearl clutching and just admit it’s about the killing fetish already.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ll bet that if someone called you a pearl-clutching 1A fetishist that just wanted to groom children, you would–rightly–argue that no, civil rights like the ability to read books about gender identity and sexuality are protected civil rights that the gov’t shouldn’t touch.

        Or if someone said that if you have nothing to hide, then you should care if the gov’t spies on you, you would tell them to fuck off and come back with a warrant.

        …But as soon as it’s a civil right you don’t personally like, well, then it’s ammosexuals and murder fetishes.

        The right is already trying to take your 1A rights in regards to press and religion–and largely succeeding!–but by golly!, you’re gonna just hand them your 2A rights so that when they finish taking your 1A and 5A rights you won’t be able to do dick except say mean things in public that will get you arrested on domestic terrorism charges (see also: cop city protests in Atlanta).

        Cool, nice chat.

    • WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      guns that have been widely considered a constitutional right for >75 years

      That was really only a result of the NRA having a coup and going from a sporting organization to a 2A advocacy group in the 1970s. They lobbied for multiple decades and had a couple of supreme court victories in 2006 and 2012 that made it an individual right to own whatever the fuck kind of gun you want. It’s very, very recent.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, no. It simply wasn’t considered an issue before that point for the most part. Then you had Reagan passing bullshit laws because he was afraid of black people, and, well, shit took off.

        It’s pretty clear from a reading of the documents surrounding the writing of the US constitution that it was always intended as an individual right–and legal obligation in many instances!–and that it was intended to mean military arms.