Comic Strips

12948 readers

3028 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lawrence@lemmy.world

961

Guns (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by aburtang@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

217 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

What? This is true but that’s not my point at all. I simply don’t care if they are military weapons or not. The entire point of the second amendment is for the citizenry to pose a threat against tyranny, which could include the military. Civilian ownership of effective weapons is part and parcel with that.

Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle? What kind of war do you think you will be fighting that this would actually make a meaningful difference?

Weapons were entirely different things when the second amendment was made, that is your interpretation of the second amendment that a fully kitted ar-15 with high capacity magazines fits the definition of what the writers of the constitution had in mind when the wrote the second amendment is and frankly it doesn't matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Do you really think an assault rifle is going to give you that critical edge against an f-16 or armored fighting vehicle vs a hunting style rifle?

Do you really pay this little attention to history? If AFVs and fighter jets were some magic bullet, the wars in the Middle East and Asia would have been vastly different affairs. Resistance fighters don’t shoot down fighter jets and they are often successful regardless, it’s a completely silly point to make.

frankly it doesn't matter too much after a certain point if the writers of the constitution wrote this part of the law without ANY of the modern context of how much more violence a single person with a weapon can do in a short time.

I could make points about how the founding fathers knew about repeating firearm development, people owned warships, etc.

But ultimately, I really do not care what the founding fathers would have thought. They weren’t gods. Here, today, a large proportion of Americans believe that modern firearms are an important check on tyranny. The second amendment is not my reason for holding this belief, it’s just a guarantee of our right to defend ourselves.