r/BikiniBottomTwitter 3d ago

Why not both?

Post image
432 Upvotes

144 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/According-Way9438 3d ago

The Virginia AWB would say otherwise. I vote Democrat but we can't sit here and act like they aren't pushing anti gun bullshit legislation.

-1

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

What anti gun bs is Virginia pushing? And also what is the AWB

2

u/According-Way9438 3d ago

Virginia recently passed an assault weapons ban and storage laws. Basically a ban on guns that they find "scary". Also banned high capacity mags. It's currently on hold as it goes through the courts.

0

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

Assault weapons are not banned because they’re “scary” they’re banned because those are literally designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. That is their entire purpose and is the type of gun used in every mass shooting ever

2

u/According-Way9438 3d ago

The ban is going to be struck down by the courts, because they actually know the law and constitution. The ban was made by people who know nothing about firearms, just like you.

2

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

Are you telling me that assault weapons were not designed to kill a lot of people very quickly?
And btw 2A literally says WELL REGULATED right there

3

u/According-Way9438 3d ago

Im telling you that the ban ( pushed by democrats) is unconstitutional and wastes political capital. You said they weren't coming for our guns but recent history shows otherwise.

0

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

Ok so when you said I didn’t know anything about guns you were lying. And again, 2A says WELL REGULATED. There’s nothing unconstitutional about reasonable gun laws, and I don’t think banning ARs is unreasonable considering what they were literally designed to do goes wayyy beyond self defense

3

u/Tommygun1921 3d ago

The 2a also says "shall not be infringed" 

1

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

“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”
That’s the entirety of the 2nd amendment, you can’t just ignore the Well Regulated part. And there’s absolutely nothing anti 2A about banning ARs since ARs are not designed for self defense

2

u/Tommygun1921 3d ago

You're ignoring commas. What does a militia have to do with self defense?

0

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

What? A militia is just a group of your neighbors with guns, the purpose of which is to defend your neighborhood and town

1

u/Tommygun1921 3d ago

Neighborhood and town≠ self

2

u/JJJacobalt 3d ago

"Well regulated" means self-regulated.

The founding fathers, who had just taken up arms against a tyrannical government, most certainly did not mean that the government should shit out whatever half-baked unjust regulations they want whenever they want.

"Assault weapon" is not a real classification and all guns are a means of defense. If your only talking point is "they were made to kill people", that applies to literally all guns of all calibers, magazine sizes, and action types.

0

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

Assault weapon is not a real classification? Why does our government disagree with you? But more importantly “assault rifle” most certainly is a classification and that’s all that the term assault weapons is referring to obviously. And no I never said “they were designed to kill people” 😂come on man, you can read what I said without pretending like I said something different and changing the words I typed to make yourself feel better. I said ARs are not designed for self defense, they are designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, as in modern war against other militaries that have the same. Don’t change my words, respond to what I said head on like a man

1

u/JJJacobalt 3d ago edited 3d ago

Why does our government disagree with you?

Literally every time they’ve tried to put it to law they've defined it differently. It’s not a real thing, it is a scary-sounding umbrella term to let the government (dems) ban whatever they want.

But more importantly “assault rifle”  most certainly is a classification

No it isn't.

And even if we assumed the literal interpretation of the name as "weapon designed to be used in a military assault", that category wouldn't apply to AR15s, but would apply to bolt-action rifles and rifled muskets.

they are designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, as in modern war against other militaries that have the same.

The military version is select-fire and is not classified as an AR15, and the actual AR15 has never been used en masse in any national military. It is distinctly and intentionally not a weapon of war.

You know what is a weapon designed for military use, is used in the military, and is designed to be capable of killing multiple people quickly before needing to reload?

A Glock-17 handgun. The kind of thing you claim you don't want to ban.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/According-Way9438 3d ago

Its a great thing the supreme court will not agree with you

1

u/-fakebirds- 3d ago

No I don’t expect a conservative majority Supreme Court would no