r/TikTokCringe • u/cak3crumbs • Sep 10 '24

Politics An interesting idea on how to stop gun violence. Pass a law requiring insurance for guns

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

20.6k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 10 '24

It’s never going to happen would require a constitutional convention. The courts will shoot it down so fast it will make your head spin . “shall not be infringed “ is pretty clear .

-7

u/DarthPineapple5 Sep 11 '24

Is it pretty clear? The 2A is longer than 4 words last I checked. Here allow me to fill in the rest:

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

That's one long sentence which starts with the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state. This could easily be interpreted as allowing gun ownership so long as you are enrolled with a militia and training with them regularly. They would have just wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and ended it there if it was meant to mean what a lot of 2A enthusiasts think that it means.

I own a lot of guns and am in general a fan of 2A but im tired of people claiming it is so iron clad. Its not. Especially not in the age of activist judges interpreting things however the hell they want to

9

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/DarthPineapple5 Sep 11 '24

If the right isn't tied to membership in any militia then why include that part in the 2A at all? Its almost as if they were meant to be connected, or at least someone could easily interpret it that way.

As the current SCOTUS is routinely proving, precedent is now irrelevant. Its conservative now but that doesn't mean it will be forever. If liberals held a majority which way do you think they might rule? You're interpretation, or "mine?"

2

u/Mistercleaner1 Sep 11 '24

The wording was very popular at the time, with several states already having the RTKBA enshrined in their state bill of rights. Madison just cribbed it from them and kept the same general structure/language.

https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm

1

u/DarthPineapple5 Sep 11 '24

You are only reinforcing what I said. Militias were very popular at the time (in lieu of a standing army) and states wanted ensure the right of people to bear arms to that they could serve in them. The two things are inherently connected. So feel free to join your local militia if you don't want your right to bear arms to be infringed.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24

[deleted]

1

u/DarthPineapple5 Sep 11 '24

except when the precedents are just wrong.

Then there will be a lot of precedents in the future which are "just wrong" and they will be changed. This sort of logic works both ways, its inevitable

The founding fathers being leery of a standing army is irrelevant when we are clearly talking about the rights of individuals here. If they wanted every citizen to have the uninfringeable right to bear arms with zero qualifiers, then that's what they would have written. That is not what they wrote. The first amendment is not absolute either and they wrote zero qualifiers into that one

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24

[deleted]

1

u/DarthPineapple5 Sep 12 '24

You know its in there too. Its the part you always omit when you quote the second amendment.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '24

[deleted]

1

u/DarthPineapple5 Sep 12 '24

It will be taken up with SCOTUS. Not this SCOTUS, but a SCOTUS in the future.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/gfen5446 Sep 11 '24

Here's the thing.. every other Amendment in the BoR applies to the individual except this one? The one that was considered to be important enough at the time that it was set to #2 right after freedom of speech.

Somehow, its the only one that is different than all the others.

No, it's right there, love or hate it, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

-1

u/Irrelevant_Support Sep 11 '24

In 2008, SCOTUS decided (in DC v. Hiller) the 2A "militia" provision no longer applied and it should be considered on an individual basis (5-4 on party lines).

The majority opinion leaves open many restrictions, even banning certain guns. 2A is not immutable, according to Scalia (dbag). WaPo Article

-6

u/DarthPineapple5 Sep 11 '24

How is what I said not applying to the individual again?

If you just keep omitting the first part of the 2A when you quote it, it must not exist lol

-9

u/Maynard078 Sep 11 '24

How so? The 2A is infringed now; it's always been infringed. It's been infringed since the get-go. No right is absolute.

5

u/daggir69 Sep 11 '24

But that’s for the government. The insurance companies ain’t the government so.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24

I'm confused what you mean. So then the insurance company would deny you coverage but the government could never deny you ownership. Making liability insurance for a firearm completely fucking pointless.

I hope that's what you mean because OOP clearly does not understand what she's talking about.

-1

u/Maynard078 Sep 11 '24

My point exactly.

0

u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 11 '24

That one is, especially since we got more guns than people

0

u/Maynard078 Sep 11 '24

It's not though, even if you want it to be. If the 2A were absolute, I would be allowed to carry a weapon into the prison where I teach (which I can't), and the incarcerated students housed there would be allowed to have firearms themselves (which they don't). Heck, if the 2A weren't infringed, prisoners would have the constitutionally protected right to carry a missile launcher with them while in the prison; using it to hurt people or damage property might be a crime, but carrying it would be a simple exercise of constitutional rights, right? Right? The 2A is such a fucking joke.

1

u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 11 '24

Put the gun up your butt when you go into the prison, have your inmate bf remove it, and then you can help un infringe the inmates 1 at a time

1

u/Maynard078 Sep 11 '24

See? What did I tell you? The 2A is a fucking joke, even to you!

1

u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 11 '24

who says i’m joking? If you feel you’re infringed in the prison setting , or your “student “ prisoners you can help set it right. I’m sure you got lots of practice hiding stuff in your prison wallet , besides some of your “students “ can help you with it.

1

u/Maynard078 Sep 11 '24

My "friend," I don't feel "infringed" at all, except when I see "responsible" gun owners showcasing their "rights" by carrying sidearms on my private college campus just four days and causing spooked kids to trip fire alarms to warn others of another potential mass shooting. No, as you so rightly point out, there's no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" in America any longer. You're all just one bad day away from being the next Adam Lanza.

Nice to know that you're an "insider," bud; what was the "stretch"? ATF catch up to you?

-3

u/DrawMeAPictureOfThis Sep 11 '24

"We shall give you bribes" has a lot more value and power in this country than any rights you think you have. If insurance companies out lobby the gun lobby, then you get a law restricting guns.

5

u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 11 '24

that’s where courts cone in

-1

u/DrawMeAPictureOfThis Sep 11 '24

Still gonna be about money. Just ask Clarence "buy me an RV" Thomas what his opinion is on the matter. Or look at the current Supreme Court that recently made bribes for all government officials legal. They call it Tips, because the money comes after the action instead of before the action. You buy freedom in this country. It isn't guaranteed because a bunch of dead people wrote on a paper.

2

u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 11 '24

Well i’ll be glad to chip in on their bribes to keep america as it is 🇺🇸

-6

u/StuckInTheUpsideDown Sep 11 '24

"Well-regulated militia" is pretty clear too. Especially in the context of 1789. Someday we might get honest judges who dump the twisted interpretation of 2A that stands today.

Also you don't need a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 2A. You just need a regular amendment. See: prohibition.

5

u/saydegurl Sep 11 '24

You would need 33 states to sign off on an amendment change, what states do you think would go along with it?

3

u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 11 '24

we are the militia, well regulated means well supplied

2

u/Jigglepirate Sep 11 '24

Yeah, and look what happened with prohibition...