Recent comments in /f/Washington

ColorTheSkyTieDye t1_iwdhasz wrote

Go look at the data, dude. Since about 2017 the rates have been WAY higher than they were in the 90s and early 2000s. Just because it wasn’t on social media doesn’t mean older shootings weren’t documented. We have data. The data clearly shows that there has been a significant increase in school shootings in the past 5 or so years.

2

yellandtell t1_iwdg64a wrote

Poor parents can be great parents.

Rich parents can be poor parents.

The two are certainly mutually exclusive. But if we keep making excuses for poor parenting and blaming the system, then we have a real issue. As an immigrant born to parents much much much poorer than the average American I can attest to it.

1

bp92009 t1_iwda4ey wrote

Of course not. Did you forget the first part of that sentence, or did you skip to the end?

"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."

For over Two Hundred Years, that was interpreted as "to ensure the security of a free state, you need to have a well functioning and regulated militia, and for the people actively in that militia, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Except it already has been, since your average person, even in a militia, cannot own weapons like nuclear bombs.

But skipping over the first part of that, the part that defines the purpose of the amendment, seems to be common for people who pretend that they follow "Originalist" interpretations of the constitution, rather than just admitting that they like guns and want more people to own them. It was only in 2008 that this significant departure from previous understanding was taken, two hundred years later.

−2

bp92009 t1_iwd3fhm wrote

Correct, but the modern version of states being unable to put additional restrictions on firearm ownership was invented through decisions made by "Originalist" (also known as conservative wish fulfillment) judges.

It is the result of putting judges who are perfectly happy to decide an election they don't like (Bush vs Gore) and hiding behind a shield of "Originalism" that's handily tossed aside as soon as it accomplishes a political goal of the Conservative party.

It is clear in the text of the second amendment that a well functioning and regulated militia is required for the common defense. In no words does it say anything about the "personal ownership" of firearms. That was invented wholesale by "Originalist" judges.

−2

bp92009 t1_iwcxee4 wrote

DC vs Heller in 2008 was what happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Turns out that inventing a concept of personal firearm ownership (whereas it had previously been interpreted as in conjunction with a militia) has negative consequences on a societal level.

−3