One of my coworkers acknowledged that football has gotten really samey the past few years due to all the coaches playing tok safe ans not taking risks.

Hopefully others are noticing the same thing and can wake up soon

Swing again; you missed.

After all that practice you had on your kids? Oof, that must be embarrassing

Yes.

I have an app on my phone for usage limits, and for social media I have that set for 1 hour. I rarely hit the limit nowadays, but Lemmy is more than capable of taking up that time unless I have a super specific question in a niche hobby

You are delusional.

The truth of the world is that most people don’t really care what gender you are. And most people on the internet don’t know what your gender is until you tell them.

Fast forward to you going straight to treating people like shit, and immediately using your gender to declare anyone that pushes back as a bigot in order to avoid any and all criticism. That’s not healthy behavior. Go seek help, particularly therapy

Says the person that sounds like they beat their kids

children should be seen and not heard.

Bruh, wtf

Way to immediately prove their point

Bacxano! has the best opening in my opinion. I highly recommend looking it up on Youtube

I’m not sure about that, Baccano! really gives it a run for its money

location requirements, insurance requirements, and third-party checks on who has what gun when because

This sounds like a privacy dystopia ripe for governmental abuse.

but we should also attach educational requirements

Or just teach this in schools to everyone. We already need to add home-economics back into public schools across the country. Include firearm safety alongside it. And when everyone takes the class, you don’t have to track anyone.

irresponsible gun ownership is one of the primary causes of death in what should be the richest and safest country in the world.

Factually incorrect. Heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death. And out of gun deaths, accidents are a minority. The largest cause of gun deaths are suicides, which are best fixed via improving living standards with the methods I’ve already stated.

Your comment is nothing but idealistic, flowery language that doesn’t really say anything. It’s the gun control equivalent of “save the mother and the child” that’s being parroted by the pro-life crowd

No. They’re describing Switzerland, not the National Guard.

And no, thats doesn’t translate to the US well, because Switzerland (like every European country) doesn’t have gun ownership as a right that’s baked into ther constitution

limiting mag capacity or bump stocks isn’t an infringement on your right to own a gun.

And those limits do little to protect anyone that would be victims of a crime. Swapping magazines can be done faster than you think, and full auto is difficult ro control. Banning them does nothing to actually help people, it’s just security theater.

Also, the states that ban larger magazines also are more likely to ban suppressors, which is ridiculous because suppressors are personal protective equipment. Pretty much every other country leaves suppressors unregulated, because there’s no point to regulating them.

Also pretty clear that it was specifically for a “well-armed and regulated militia”

Except that’s not the case. Here is the full text:

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.

If you go through writings from that era you’ll notice that while the vocabulary changes (I’ll get to that), the grammar is virtually identical to modern English.

If you reread the amendment with that in mind, you’ll notice that the first clause doesn’t actually say anything actionable. It’s just an explanation. Isolating the second clause of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” doesn’t change the meaning of what’s being said.

Now, why did the Framers decide to include an explanation into the 2nd Amendment, but not the others? That’s hard to say. But I can at least expand on the context of the first clause.

Remembered how I said that vocabulary has changed? That’s unfortunately what happened with the first clause a bit At the time, the term “regulated” actually referred to being trained and equipped.

The term “militia” has also been distorted over time in common vernacular. What most people commonly think of as a “militia” like the National Guard is more precisely called an “organized militia”. In contrast, an “unorganized militia” refers to all able-bodied men of military age, at the time considered to be ages 16-45. Basically anyone that could be drafted in war.

This is important when you consider US military doctrine up until WWII. In times of peace, the US Army kept a small corp of professional officers, with the intent to draft men into the Army as needed whenever war is declared. Then once war was over, all the drafted men were sent back and the Army was shrunk back down.

This doctrine present a major logistics problem: when war breaks out, you need a lot of fighting men in a short amount of time. To alleviate this problem, you want the draftees (aka the unorganized militia) to already have much of the skills and equipment needed to fight, with one of these critical skills being marksmanship. Hence why the Framers found it necessary to national defense for the populous to be able to have their own weapons.

To change gears, there’s another argument I want to make: gutting and/or removing one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights sets a dangerous precedent. While the 21st amendment exists to nullify the 18th, we’ve never done that to any of the original 10 amendments. If the 2nd is abolished, why why not abolish the 4th, or the 5th, or even the 1st? That’s a dangerous precedent.

And while there’s the stereotypical argument of “you can’t take on jets and tanks with AR15’s”, the US lost Vietnam and Afghanistan, and arguably Iraq too. And that’s with the coffers and supply lines protected by an entire ocean. While a civil war would be horrifying, having that proverbial nuclear button pressures the government into somewhat caring what the populous thinks.

Further, it’s not beyond the pale to make it that our weapons should be registered so that if they’re used in committing a crime

Unfortunately, with the particular “administration” in charge at the moment I wouldn’t feel comfortable with them having a list of who has weapons. That’d make it easier for them to go after potential armed resistance early, allowing them to go full authoritarian.

Honestly, it’s in our best bet to stop pushing for gun control. That’d get rid of one of the big reasons that more moderate conservatives don’t vote for Democrats. Especially since we could instead put that effort into education, healthcare, labor rights, etc. which would do a much better job of reducing violent crime while making everyone’s lives better. There’s only so much political capital that a candidate and party can have, and it’s best spent where it would do the most good.

Ah, yes, more snarky comments that don’t actually address any points. Congrats on being a stereotypical pro-gun control pundit.

It’s pretty clear that you aren’t worth bothering with

2nd Amendment is pretty clear: shall not be infringed

I’ve never heard of anyone needing to braze or weld pipe for house plumbing. Most of the time you’re soldering copper or gluing PVC. And soldering copper pipe is fairly easy. You can learn it with a 3 minute Youtube video, a $50 trip to the hardware store, and a few practice runs. Compared to a hiring/scheduling a plumber it’s way quicker and cheaper.

Just remember to shut off your main line before working, and to test the pipes when you’re done before walking away

Same as most “Banning guns won’t stop gun violence” people.

This one doesn’t fit your argument. It might affect gun violence, but you’re ignoring the fact that people have access to a ton of ways of killing others.

The main driver of violent crime is poverty and income inequality. The solution is to tax the rich, give everyone fair wages, provide universal healthcare, properly fund schools, etc. All things that are already part of the core liberals stance, and none of those involve introducing unpopular legislation that stomps all over constitutional rights.

But heaven forbid we talk about actually fixing the root causes of violent crime. No, some people just want to ban guns to own the conservatives, and get mad when anyone pokes holes in the plan.

Being pro-gun control is the liberal equivalent of being “pro-life”.

The original is just fine.

You missed part of my comment. What you’re referring to as the “original” version is not the original version

Internet Archive definitely needs money

Hopefully cosmetic or for boffers?