US Politics on Yik Yak | How it feels when the government tries to turn your rights into licenses

Yik Yak

Download

Join communities on Yik Yak Download

US Politics 5d

How it feels when the government tries to turn your rights into licenses

Anonymous 5d

Some animals are more qualified and or more likely to carry out a thing safely is not a particularly hot take

Anonymous 5d

So what license are you against? Drivers license, teaching license, gun license, fishing licenses

Anonymous 5d

I guess you are right I don’t think anyone has a right to own a gun but believe hunting guns should be allowed

Anonymous 5d

Here are two cases from parking lots where people were killed because of stand your ground laws

Anonymous

#1 5d

Rights aren't a matter of expertise

Anonymous

OP 5d

By your logic, I have the right to use heavy machinery and if I kill someone it’s not my fault.

Anonymous

#2 5d

Explain to me how that statement uses my logic

Anonymous

#2 5d

Also heavy machinery licensing is almost always for commercial use, you actually can just go buy or rent a piece of heavy machinery and operate it on your own property, what would likely be more restrictive there are building regulations wherever you live

Anonymous

#3 5d

Gun and fishing I would be against

Anonymous

#3 5d

Plus teaching and driving aren't rights

Anonymous

OP 5d

People have different perspectives on that. I don’t think you have a right to own any gun not designed for hunting. (Shotgun and single shot rifles) it also makes sense to require fishing licenses to invest in the upkeep of public fishing areas

Anonymous

#3 5d

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting and doesn't only apply to guns made for hunting (unless your definition of hunting includes 2 legged animals)

Anonymous

OP 5d

The second amendment says you have a right to a well regulated militia not personal gun ownership

Anonymous

#3 5d

The Supreme Court added that in 2008 which I believe is a mistake

Anonymous

#3 5d

SCOTUS didn't add that, they correctly interpreted it in its historical context. The right OF THE PEOPLE, not the militia

Anonymous

#3 5d

You don't even need a gun to hunt

Anonymous

OP 5d

It was not considered that at all till the 80’s and then not given any legal standing till 2008. Its a bastardization of the constitution to meet policy goals

Anonymous

#3 5d

Well if that were able to be proven using historical analogues, it would have been. It's simply not the case.

Anonymous

#3 5d

The closest you will get is the Crown orders that we specifically made the 2nd amendment to defy, or Black Codes under Jim Crow which the majority of the US will agree were human rights violations

Anonymous

OP 5d

Sure I just think it’s the only legitimate use of a firearm

Anonymous

#3 5d

Self defense is a lot more legitimate than hunting

Anonymous

OP 5d

It was. There is a long history of gun regulation in the US prior to this that was ignored for a activist court

Anonymous

#3 5d

Give me one example then

Anonymous

#3 5d

Excluding crown orders and black codes

Anonymous

OP 5d

1939 United States Vs Miller firmly stated the second amendment only forbids laws that interfere with states militias

Anonymous

#3 5d

This is a Supreme Court case that set the precedent that gun control was not prevented by the second amendment

Anonymous

#3 5d

It left it as a state decision

Anonymous

#3 5d

That argument only works under the assumption that the NFA is a meaningful restriction on gun ownership and not a taxing power of the federal government as it claims to be. I would actually agree with you there, but I believe that means it should be repealed.

Anonymous

#3 5d

The goal of the amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with a state’s defense and ability to arm itself so that the federal government couldn’t subjugate a state not individuals

Anonymous

OP 5d

It is very much not. Self defense with a firearm is almost never warranted or justified and often can lead to worse outcomes

Anonymous

OP 5d

Same reason as poll taxes, you can't claim something to be what it isn't to get your foot in the door at restricting it

Anonymous

#3 5d

If it weren't warranted, it wouldn't be self defense

Anonymous

#3 5d

There's no reason to put someone in fear for their life with actionable means of violence that doesn't warrant getting shot

Anonymous

OP 5d

If it’s a taxing power it’s not a restriction. The reason it needs to be worded that way is otherwise the constitution says policy like that should be left to the states.

Anonymous

OP 5d

If it was a federal restriction than it wouldn’t be repealed on the second amendment but rather a breach of state rights

Anonymous

#3 5d

I agree, and I think it acts more as a restriction than a taxing power, which is the implication of you bringing it up when I asked for the history of gun restrictions in this country.

Anonymous

#3 5d

There are a lot of ways that you could argue the NFA is unconstitutional, which is why its currently on the SCOTUS docket for a facial examination

Anonymous

OP 5d

The ability to claim self defense is way too broad. How can your fear be measured and it then doesn’t justify shooting someone. If someone looks at you wrong in the parking lot you can currently shoot them and claim you feared for your life. It’s absurd. Even if you are being mugged or burgled it’s better just to let them take your wallet or make noise to scare them off. You don’t need to shoot them. The crime should not equal a death penalty

Anonymous

OP 5d

It is a taxing power though. It’s a tax on gun ownership. States also have the right to regulate further such as banning hand guns bump stocks or assault rifles

Anonymous

#3 5d

I don't think any jury is ruling in your favor for shooting a guy across the parking lot who "looks at you wrong", but try that and let me know how it turns out

Anonymous

#3 5d

Assault weapons bans are also being facially examined, cope and seethe

Anonymous

#3 5d

It acts as a gun regulation sure but it’s run through taxes. Just like it’s legal to tax sugar or tobacco to try and reduce consumption you can tax guns

Anonymous

#3 5d

Again, you can't claim a bill or law is what it isn't to get your foot in the door at restricting something. This is why poll taxes were done away with.

Anonymous

OP 5d

I know and it’s absurd because it’s a completely absurd reading of the constitution that is trying to get a policy result of more guns making this country more dangerous. It’s not based on law or the constitution but rather the personal beliefs of the bench

Anonymous

#3 5d

There is always going to be some subjective factor to the interpretation of the constitution, it just happens that we are now examining incredibly vague laws that are easy to disagree on the interpretation of

Anonymous

OP 5d

They do all the time. It’s a stand your ground law. It mostly depends on race but if you are white shooting someone black you have an 80 % chance of going free

Anonymous

#3 5d

Can you find one case where the reason for self defense was just "looking at someone wrong"? Doesn't even have to be in a parking lot

Anonymous

OP 5d

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna896721

Anonymous

#3 5d

It is not rare and estimates say it adds 700 deaths a year

Anonymous

#3 5d

So not only was that not about someone "looking the wrong way" at another, that wasn't even ruled as self defense and the guy is in jail for it. Don't really know what you're getting at there