Proper grammar in your memes porfavor
Shapiro's certainly pro Israel, but has he ever actually endorsed the US sending money there?
Shapiro has never once advocated for this.
Expand More Comments
What's bad about this isn't necessarily that it's a lie, though it is. It makes the false assumption that because Shapiro is Jewish, he puts religion before political consistency. This isn't the case, and just reflects a racial stereotype.
Poor Americans? Sick Americans? Help with astronomical college costs? Bridges and roads need fixing? Fuck you, Israel needs it more!
So wait do we not support our allies, we support allies so they can support us. Do we not do this?
I still don't quite get how someone can be so logical and rational in his arguments, but still believe in a magical man in the sky.
Israel takes like .1%. And I’m cool with helping those we care about and care about us. It’s like giving your buddy 20 bucks and saying yeah you get the next sixer.
And the artificial supply restrictions in the healthcare market are ok because his wife is a doctor who paid her dues to the cartel went to med school for a long time. Standard republican hypocrite. A dumb guy’s idea of a smart guy because he talks twice as fast as average to say what can be said with half as many words.
“Israel is occupying Palestine!!!”
At least give some actual criticism not made up stuff about Ben Shapiro. Oh wait you can’t because he’s destroyed every liberal argument ever
Die for 🇮🇱🇮🇱🤥
Ruben Shapiro is of course, a jew first and conservative second.
Shapiro is a Zionist hawk, but I've not heard his actual position on foreign aid. There are some Zionists who will go the "it's better if we don't take US money, we don't want strings attached, blah blah blah".
The asshole who said that Arabs prefer to live in sewers.
This is like the 50th repost
Cool. So now we're just making up fake quotes.
Shapiro is right about 95% of the time. If you want to criticize his position, go about it in a way that doesn't strawman him.
Time to hang up the flag. We have been defeated.
That's not communism or socialism. That's a mutually beneficial voluntary agreement. The basis for capitalism.
At killing the most people. It always does.
Originally, human hunter gather groups were probably proto-communist/socialist
me and my sisters used to gamble our Halloween candy in games of black jack, I think our economic system should be based on that.
Only way that example is considered communism or socialism is if their parents, using the threat of physical punishment and/or grounding, forced them to share, and not just with themselves, but with other people not in their family, to the point where they had far less than they would have had if their parents weren't communism/socialist.
soviet union anthem plays
If we're going by the American definition of socialism then we can point to most of Europe
That’s a private contract, and a fucking genius one at that
Lol. Just give me five more minutes to reload tho
Based on Revolutionary precedent (namely the cannon at Concord), the 2nd amendment was meant to go as far as to support the right of the people to keep and bear artillery.
This would be a much better picture if it had the dates of invention for each gun
The Founding Father's definitely couldn't have predicted the internet, so naturally the First amendment doesn't apply on it.
HAVE you heard of the Girardoni Air Gun it was silent, fired 22 shots automatically and was magazine feed. THIS was OWNED by Thomas Jefferson
Those aren't founding fathers weapons largely, and 18th century multibarrel firearms were very rare as they were impractical and explicitly not common.
Want a real 1774 weapon that can fire 3 times a minute? Brown bess. The Charleville Musket. The standard issue weapon of war.
The smaller one in the top left is a pepperbox pistol. It was popular with women for self defense lol.
The supreme court established the common use interpretation/precedent, based on the idea that only guns that are commonly used are/were protected. That's why it's unconstitutional to outright ban handguns today. None of those weapons from the OP were common use at the time.
The problem is that common use changes over time. I think it's a bad precedent, but it's still a test the courts use.
I love these crazy old designs
Does "the 2nd" afford me the right to possess a bomb that discharges 30 pieces of shrapnel in 6 seconds in the direction I choose?
The founding fathers also wanted taxation, somehow the sacredness of their words ends after guns but before taxes
When the Founding Fathers wrote all the amendments, they didn't expect any of them to apply to state law.
Case in point, North Carolina's Constitution says only Protestants can hold public office.
As a libertarian this makes me cringe
I'm pretty sure most of these are civil war era guns
These are civil war era guns.
Yeah I have that in my home for defense, whatever that is in the lower left corner
As soon as 3D printed guns really take off, we should be arming the homeless in every city and guiding them to the nearest gated community.
Yes, there were some repeating arms around in the late 18th century but it doesn't matter anyway; the framers were obviously aware that technology advances and they mentioned it explicitly in multiple contexts.
The principles are what matters, and they explained very clearly that the issue at hand was the right of self defense, both individual and collective.
Anyone who argues that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the technology of the time it was written must also hold that the 1st only applies to live spoken words, quill pens, and 18th century manual presses.
It's mind boggling that so many people seem to be unaware that there is a freaking MOUNTAIN of documents from that period... hearings, essays, newspaper articles, books, etc... exploring in excruciating detail just what thinking is behind every bit of the Constitution and the amendments - including the issues they ignored, like slavery.
You can disagree with original intent, but there's no question about what the original intentions actually were.
I like informational pics like this, but you could leave out the dis to gun control advocates. They will see that and ignore all the information.
"God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
The firearm is best thing to ever happen to liberty.
Nazi Germany loosened strict gun regulations imposed by the Weimar republic. They just didn't loosen them for Jews.
1) This is sort of a cart and horse issue, places that were considered vulnerable to shootings were made into gun free zones. The actual explanatory power of this statistic is questionable.
2) Great, but all violence and crime has been dropping since about '93. This is less about guns than about overall trends towards lower crime rates.
3)The real issue here isn't FFL dealers at gun shows, it's private transfers that are facilitated by being at a gunshow, turning people who did nothing wrong (private sales don't require background checks) into unwitting straw buyers. The fix here is to make the background check system better and available to (and possibly required for) private sales as well.
4) Good? I'm certainly not opposed to people protecting themselves. That said this statistic doesn't mean much in the absence of context, how many defensive uses vs. criminal uses? What proportion of gun owners end up needing to defend themselves? This really needs more context.
5) There is at least some misinformation here, for instance the Nazis actually expanded private gun rights and then specifically targeted the groups they didn't like with gun control.
So you've got a couple of strawmen, one or two pieces of data that don't really support what you're saying they do, and one that, while relevant to the debate, doesn't really tell us much without more context.
Okay guys, downvote away.
All we need are background checks and MAYBE mandatory safety courses. Anything more would be both needless and a violation of our second amendment rights.
I’m all for actual statistics, but where does this 2.5million self defense uses or incidents per year come from?
It seems large and rather unverifiable. Rounding numbers off the nearest half million just doesn’t feel like an actual stat. If anyone has link to a non-agenda driven page I would love to look into it further.
I'm a firearms owner. I've had a G20 for, shit, almost ten years now.
The gun show loophole point is relying on inaccurate language that doesn't really address the issue. There's a reason it's called a loophole and not a "gun show exemption". The loophole exists because of failures of the language in existing laws to appropriately define what constitute a business that deals with guns. While we can easily cover "gun stores", private sales are not adequately covered by the law. So they do not necessarily fall into the category of entities that substantially devote time and effort into the doing "business" of gun selling. So there might not be any legal language that "specifically" exempts anyone. But that's not really the issue.
Hate? It's unlikely they're acquainted with facts enough to know that those exist.
This is one of few topics that a lot of you here would disagree with me on..
I firmly believe in the right for every citizen to own firearms. Which should be the libertarian view regardless.
However, I see a lot of comments here that make me get the idea that most here on r/libertarian believe that not all individuals should be allowed to own firearms(based on criminal history, DV, etc..). I just can’t get myself to support any individual, or group of individuals, adding stipulations to a constitutional right, and treating it as a privilege instead.
I am also curious, from the viewpoint of someone who was 100% libertarian, what would be the stance on this? If a person were 100% libertarian, would they stand by the mentally disabled being allowed to own firearms? (This is the one group whom I believe should at least be evaluated on an individual basis for firearm ownership)
Careful with the 50% stat. One could argue the 94 “Assault weapon” ban is what set that in motion
So.... The gun show exemption isn't a thing itself, but private transfer of firearms is absolutely a thing. Private sale does not require background checks in a lot of places. It's just that most gun show sales are considered private.
I don't think #1 would actually do any more than push them to want to ban guns nationwide. If they blame the non-gun free parts for bringing the guns in, wouldn't that want to eradicate those parts?
Agree with most of it, but #5 is pretty close to "whatabout-ism". Also, why does #4 show a soldier when talking about self-defense?
Ottoman Turkey did not commit a genocide. Yes killing people is bad. War is bad. They did not commit a genocide against Armenians though. Western powers instigated rebellions all through Turkey and Turkey fought back. Yes they may have killed innocent Armenians which is bad but the Armenians killed Turks too. It was war.
One Fact That Gun Rights Advocates Hate: The 50% drop in gun violence since 1993 is because of Roe v Wade. You get rid of Roe v Wade you get more criminals commiting gun violence and then more gun control.
This is a pretty disingenuous “fact” sheet, with massive amounts of spin and omitted facts to make the claims that it does.
You shouldnt add a diss it makes people want to ignore it.
What is the importance of the first fact since I assume that most mass shooters do not buy their guns in gun-free zones?
Actually it is less than 1% according to the crime prevention center (taking about massing shootings in pro gun zones) meaning more than 99% of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones
5: Why not list all the nations that initiated tougher gun controls only to not commit genocide. OR nations that committed genocide without strengthening gun control?
For #5, can we add Venezuela to the list?
Lol what's this from
me when asked the same question
I'll say I'm a Republican depending on how much I hate the liberal asking me the question.
I love my own individual free will. . . so I really hate Democrats and Republicans.
Isn't the lesson here that Treebeard tries to stay above the conflict going on around him but is shown/convinced how thats impossible for him to do because like it or not he's part of the world and affected by the conflict, therefore he must act and take a side?
You're on the side of wealthy executives and trust fund heirs. Go hang out with them.
...buuuuut.... Going to vote Republican anyway so....
There is no curse in commie, nazi, or in the tongues of neoliberals for this treachery.
I still vote 60/40 dem.
I prefer this one
Just a nitpick but the green on blue is a bad choice
This point is somewhat moot, though, as it's not so much the relative risk between certain ways of dying that people care about - you are of course way, way likelier to die in a car crash than to be shot in a mass shooting, but the crash is likely an accident and something you had (at least some, or the feeling of) control over, whereas the shooting isn't. The malice of intent differs greatly, which is why terrorism too receives a lot more public concern and government prevention effort than other much bigger causes of death - though granted, the purpose of the government here is to take the rational action rather than the emotional and irrational response of the general public. Thus people will always be disproportionately concerned about shootings and terrorists than the mundane shit like obesity and car crashes.
Pretty sure complications due to obesity (heart disease being primary) are the leading cause of death in America. If regulators gave an actual shit, they would ban fat people lol.
Edit: apparently people are missing my sarcasm
Eh TBH the left side is pretty worthless since everyone dies eventually and murders are pretty miniscule comparatively even in failed states. Maybe compare it to all deaths by unnatural causes.
I think the fear is that you could be a non-gang-member, and get killed in a mass shooting. Even if it only happens 0.x% of the time, it's scary for a lot of people.
People are likely looking for an easy and visible and cheap solution (limiting access to Eg: assault weapons), rather than a complicated and invisible and expensive solution (changing the education & mental health & poverty situations).
MASS SHOOTINGS - THE ACTUAL NUMBERSby Kevin Ryan
In the wake of the Florida shooting, news outlets and politicians are already scrambling to politicize the tragedy, decrying the plague of mass shootings afflicting our country and offering various estimates of the number committed. Some even claim there are hundreds of such attacks per year.
The reason there are so many disparate estimates is that the definition of a mass shooting isn’t standard. Different sources use different numbers. Some include shootings that only injure, some say any shooting with multiple victims is a mass shooting, etc.
But the FBI actually has a definition of what it considers a mass shooting: four or more homicides (excluding the shooter) occurring during the same incident. Using that criteria, Mother Jones (not exactly a conservative, pro-gun source) created a database of all mass shootings in America since 1982.
They found that mass shootings are extremely rare, averaging 2.3 attacks killing 21 people per year for the last 36 years. The be sure, that number has been increasing, with an average of 3.9 mass shootings accounting for 41 deaths per year over the last 10 years. But to put that in perspective, consider the following:
In 2016, there were 323,127,513 people in America. 2,744,248 died of all causes that year, equaling 0.8% of the population. Of those, 19,103 were killed by homicides, or 0.6% of all deaths. And of those, 65 were killed in mass shootings, or 0.3% of all homicides.
Which isn’t to trivialize the tragedy of mass shootings, or any of these deaths, for that matter. But rather to keep it in perspective, especially when considering new laws and sweeping policy changes. Policymakers would likely be far more successful in their approach to gun violence by addressing the motives behind the majority of murders and suicides (crime, depression, and mental illness) instead of the means used to commit them.
Note: Mother Jones actually lists all shootings that killed 3 or more people. My figures use the FBI definition of a mass shooting: 4 or more deaths.
The murder rate in the US is shockingly high compared to European countries no matter how you look at it.
The fact that all the mass shootings that we hear about in the media is only a tiny fraction of the overall murder rate is not a positive thing overall.
The reason people care about murder is obvious. It is one member of the species killing another member of the species.
It isn't 30 years of McDonald's causing a heart attack. Or a car accident. Or an act of god. Or an engineering error.
It is one person choosing to end the life of another.
Why don't we work to make that number 0%?
I'd also like to see this split a few more times, such as taking deaths and doing just shootings, then non-gang related shootings, then non-gang mass shootings, And take the non-gang related shootings and pull out suicides and self-defence shootings seperately.
I'd also like to see the spread between "assault rifles" and non-"assault rifles" (since I'd assume most shootings are from pistols and shotguns over any form of rifle really).
This visualization is the definition of making an ideological argument with data.
I'm not saying it's wrong or not useful, but it's clearly not unbiased.
Why is this a libertarian issue?
Complacency defined in one picture
This doesn’t mean that mass shootings are not an issue. Where as most death in America is of people who have live full lives, mass shootings disproportionately affect young people who would have otherwise live many more years.
I don’t think the fixation on mass shootings is that it’s a certain amount of the population, it’s the fear it causes us and the fact that it is happening at all.
So then your point is that murders in mass shootings don't really count as murders? /s
Can we add a third circle that shows how many of the right pie is scary murder rifles?
This leaves out suicides by classifying it as “murder.” I do believe gun regulation advocates also talk about suicide.
sounds like ya'll need to ban handguns
Mass shootings have a large negative impact on the survivors, family members, community members, hell the entire damn country and culture, that things like heart attacks and cancer simply don’t. To call looking at only the number dead without considering broader implications “perspective” is a really bad joke.
Driving accidents kill more people than guns do.
Nobody thinks banning cars is a good idea.
Sacrificing individual freedoms for the benefit of the whole is not what this country was founded on.
Yeah now apply this same logic to immigration, and terrorism. Probably won't feel the same way.
Mhmm and this is where I unsub
It’s not that they happen often, it’s that they happen at all. The people who want to regulate guns more than you libertarians don’t think mass shooting happen a lot. I’m sure most sensible people aren’t going to be surprised by this statistic at all. They think it happens too much because it happens at all. They are unnecessary and only happen because, let face it, people just like their guns, and don’t want to give them up..
This graph is fighting an argument few people are going to stand by for long anyway. It’s kind of pointless.
“In my career I’ve probably made 100,000 phone calls, and no more than 1% were inappropriate.”
“So you’ve made a thousand inappropriate phone calls?”
I didn't realise the murder rate in the USA was so high. This should really be quite alarming to people based on that alone.
So, you're saying we should focus on the blue bit? Great. A large portion of them are going to be thanks to health reasons. One thing you can do to help is to make sure people have good access to healthcare. And that is something that most European nations have already figured out.
Libertarianism: Racism with extra steps.
How many deaths would be avoided if we eliminated the drug cartels by legalizing drugs?
And that 0.2% of 0.6% represents about half of what the media talks about
Curious is there any data to go along with backing up this claim by this graph? Tried searching for an article by Unbiased America, could find a what appears to be a one man blog site not updated since 2017 and there's a Facebook page but nothing else. Seeing as it's graphic that just has a logo and some percentages slapped on it people believe this?
How many people die in car accidents a year? Yet 3000 people die on 9/11 and suddenly its a major tragedy
Amen! Do we know if this infographic was made using the old definition of mass shooting (the one that describes just the ones the news cares about) or the expanded definition that includes gang wars and domestic violence?
I'm not sure it's relevant to compare murders to people dying of old age. The overwhelming majority of people are not murdered; we know that.
Show me a similar chart covering only "unnatural" deaths, and we can have an intelligent conversation.
"perspective" with a obvious bias because we do not post sources for information gathered. I'm for open info but make it all open don't just post a thumbnail without viable context.
It needs the mass shootings divided into “with an AR and without
Good post, too bad so many people try to divert the thread.
This makes me feel so much better about those 20 6yr olds that were killed in Newtown, sometimes I forget they were just a statistic! Thanks for posting
Still too much
Dave kills only 214 people a year, but cars kill way more. So let's just focus on the real problem and let Dave go about his business.
No this graphic doesn’t help with anything. Death is inevitable.
Pretty sure you can go even deeper in mass shootings and pull out the even smaller percentage of those that take place in schools.
Obviously the number should be zero, but I think we all agree here that attacking the 2nd amendment based on what accounts for like .02% of shootings or whatever is just plain illogical.
Quick, give away all our rights because the media is whipping people into a frenzy over a very small issue!
51% of murders by black males, 93% of that black on black #BLM
Classic T_D lite ignoring any sort of nuance or putting 5 seconds worth of thought into a topic before just slapping the Libertarian label on it and calling it a day.
The reason these stats are meaningless is because most people don't have to worry about being murdered while at school or at a concert because most people don't live in areas with really any gun related homicides at all.
How about instead of wasting everyone's time with pointless statistics we compare the chance of death in the town these occur in with and without mass shootings?
Saying "Oh well even though your kid was murdered at school because "muh 2nd amendment" lots of people die every year so get over it"
is fucking retarded but I'm honestly not surprised considering the amount of brainless trolls here
To actually put it into perspective. The percentage of murders in all deaths in western European countries clocks in at about 0,05%. 400 murders out of 800.000 dead.
This should be in /r/til
Can someone confirm these stats?
Wow I would not have guessed 0.6% of people are murdered. That is absolutely wild. 1/200?? Slightly more but whatever.
Can't agree there. I think people are more afraid of the tiny possibility of getting shot when at a concert or mall than the high possibility having a heart attack if they continue to eat those damn tasty burgers for the next 20 years.
That said - it would be great if the media made a concerted effort to improve the health of the whole population.... hang on, if they did, would we be criticizing them for attacking burger joints?
I agree with the overall point this post is making but I would be interested to see a similar chart exclusively for high school students over the past year or two. As an analogy, sharks kill barely any people every year but if you are swimming in shark infested water those statistics aren't very comforting.
Like terrorism, mass shootings are marginal--in the technical sense--events that create immense amounts of fear and paranoia in the public. Mass shooting likely require a surgical policy solution instead of blanket ones, much like terrorism is best met with surgical solutions, not blanket ones like the PATRIOT Act or carpet bombing whole mountain ranges.
This is somewhat misleading, is this accounting for people passing due to old age? Or is it expressing the numbers of people who died of “non natural causes”. I mean sure it’s great that the number of deaths isn’t a whole 1%; but wouldn’t it be ideal if that percentage had maybe 2 more zeros in it?
nearly every captive is incarcerated by state forces
nearly all the stolen money and property is taken by either the state (via taxes, fines, permits, asset forfeitures, etc.) or by organizations regulated and incorporated within and by the state (wage theft, imbezzlement, blue collar crime, etc.)
This doesn't fuel my fears or allow me to rant on facebook about how terrible everything is because of Current Year; therefore its false.
I'd like to see this statistics in regard to child murders. How many minors are murdered per year and how many of them are in mass shootings?
You should add a slice that says self defense and guns
Most murders are committed between people who know each other, or often involving other crimes. Most mass murders are random and the victims are innocent. Stopping mass murders isn’t the worst idea compared to other murders (which are impossible to stop)
You got a source to back that up? /s
I agree with you OP on what this graph is trying to relay, but I don’t think the argument now should be based on how many people have died from mass shootings. I think the frequency of the shootings is what should be focused on. In the last 10 years there have been 13 mass shootings in America. The 56 years before that there have been 13 mass shootings.
I am not saying take anyone’s guns away, but I believe that it should be considered how often this is starting to happen.
Yes every mass shooting is such a big event and has been only increasing in the amount. That small percentage has a major impact on the news.
….YEP, how about that "deaths caused by criminal that could have been prevented by having a gun to 'defend' yourself with" (which most of us 'libtards' actually support you been able to have, its that weapon designed to spray massive rounds of bullets that servers no purpose in self-defense, except in killing masses of people, that the majority support ANYONE outside military possessing)
But but, it's the cause of our times. Only the police and military can have guns.
Just as a note, 0.2% of 0.6, is 0.0012. 0.0012% of 325.7 million (population of USA) is 3908.4 people.
It's not about your safety. It's about scaring you into giving up your rights to arms so that in the future they can fuck you over and not have to worry about being shot by you.
I'm surprised that the murder count is as high as 0.6%
What's the preventable deaths graph look like?
Curious what percentage is vehicles
My issue with gun control has to do with suicide rates. Mass shooting will happen no matter how hard you try to ban guns.
deaths from murder is exponentially worse than death by natural causes. Eating bad food is not a crime because no one else is harmed by it.
Yeah, but... it could be 0.00%
It's a bit like the "all muslims are terrorists" ratios.
My God, if you get murdered, you have a 2 in 1,000 chance of getting killed in a mass shooting. We must do something about this now!
Also true so maybe anyone can pick and choose a statistic to make a dumb point.
I would be more interested to see percentages of murders involving guns. Also, as far as I am concerned the number of murders by mass shootings should be 0 so this is still not good.
The problem with doing this as a per cent is that whilst it seems mass shootings aren't as troublesome as the media portrays, it fails to deliver volumes and also fails to compare the USA to other, similar and western nations, if we did that we'd see that the USA is head and shoulders above all other western countries as a percentage overall, and definitely in volumes too.
Furthermore, this statistic makes mass shootings in the USA seem far less significant than they really are because it's comparing your chances with being murdered in a mass shooting rather than examining mass shooting levels themselves.
Ergo, compare mass shootings with USA and other western countries and let's see the graph, if you would...
So what you're saying is that it's a waste of money and resources investigating murder and trying to stop mass murders since it makes up such an insignificant number of deaths?
Sharing something from Unbiased America unironically is the pinnacle of this sub tbh.
Why are murders compared to death by natural causes?
So that means it’s not a problem?
You know what an acceptable number of murders is?.... Zero
This makes it okay!
I still don't see the part where it makes it okay that children get brutally murdered at school
Come on guys, you're just not gonna win anyone over with this.
Is this graph suggesting we should ignore the mass shooting problem because it isn’t enough of a problem?
Try telling your boss that you’re ignoring a problem at work because it’s not important enough and see where that gets you.
OMG. More than half a one percent of deaths in America are murders? As spanish or on general european, this sounds horrible to me, like you are a country in war. Sorry if this sounds normal to you.
So just because it’s a small percent it’s not a problem? That 0.2% were real people. This isn’t a numbers game, those are human lives.
So more than one out of 200 are murdered.
Is it comforting to reduce children murdered in theirs schools to a decimal figure?
Holy shit libertarians are stupid.
It's true. Mass shootings are statistical noise in total shootings. There just aren't that many crazy people that want to go out and take a lot of people with them. If you really want to massively reduce gun deaths in the USA, legalize and regulate all drugs. Gangs would practically cease to exist overnight as they have no source of income.
How would you remedy this
Wtf the government has no business knowing how much I own, how about flat fine. This idea that the rich are these race of assholes is just stupid and economically ignorant.
How about you don’t extort money from people for no legitimate reason.
Huh, something from Sarwark I agree with. Hell just froze over.
The real problem is that people see it this way. They don’t vote for who they want more so they vote to keep away the one they want least.
They do not view the 3rd parties as having a chance so they continue their same old voting patterns even though they dislike the result. Insanity maybe?
It has become more and more obvious that there is only one political party in this country, and that is the business party.
Yeah, making goods more expensive for every American will really show em.
This clown is less of a fiscal conservative than Hillary.
This is like a post on r/justneckbeardthings for stupid economics. I read it and wanna downvote it, but I wanna upvote for the person who brought us this painful stupidity.
Reminder: Trump is a literal authoritarian, racist, sexist, buffoon who idolizes people like Mussolini.
All you libertarians are worried about leftists overtaking this sub? You should pay more attention to the neo-conservatives. They are the ones with ACTUAL power.
Even Ron Paul once said even though he is against tariffs, he would use them as a tool to get others to lower or drop their tarrifs. Not sure why people find this concept hard to understand.
The main difference is that it's not currently the depression. The economy is red hot right now, so much that economists fear that it is at risk of overheating.
As the posts states, tariffs have a cooling effect on the economy. So right now, when the economy is red hot, it is the ideal time to l create some headwinds. You sure as hell wouldn't want to negotiate new trade deals when the economy is in a down turn.
Yeah, but whatabout "necessity" and "Free state"?
Just kidding man, good one.
"Properly armed," huh?
Yeah I like the idea of that. There's plenty of countries just as free if not freer than the US that think people should only be armed if its proper
The last line ruins it. It should still simply state shall not be infringed. Cant get much clearer than that.
For the Democrats that can't be bothered to learn the queen's good english
Yo listen up foolz, peepz wid gatz keep freedom realz. Constitution sayz peepz can haz gatz 'n u cant do shiz boutz it
This is oversimplified to the point of uselessness.
One of the big sticking points, today and earlier in history, was infringed by whom?
Does a property owner have a right to object to someone on their property who is armed without permission? Mostly people would likely say yes. But this is not clear at all in the words.
Can a state or local government infringe on this right? Historically, the answer was usually yes, as the constitution was understood to only limit what the federal government could do. These days, that thinking has shifted and the bill of rights often limits state and local governments also.
Saying the thing is really very simple doesn't make it actually that simple.
Made with Love in New York City, New Jersey & Monterrey, Mexico.