A med student says he’s made thousands of dollars selling photos and videos of a young conservative woman he created using generative tools. He’s not alone.
The constitution is supposed to be continuously updated and refined with the changing needs of the Republic.
Does a fairly daft bit about everyone having guns that needs removing. You can get on that.
That law was added when guns were so imprecise it was difficult to hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn. It wasn’t designed for guns with fire rates in excess of one round every 5 minutes. Back then if somebody went on a shooting spree you could just walk up to them and punch them while they were in the middle of reloading.
Exactly, bullets weren’t even invented yet when they wrote the Constitution, but “conservatives” believe all these modern weapons are exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect.
That law was added when guns were so imprecise it was difficult to hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn.
That’s blatantly false. Timothy Murphy killed a British officer during the Revolutionary War at a distance of 300-400 yards. They absolutely had the capability of precise marksmanship at the time the constitution was written. Repeating rifles were not a foreign concept either. They weren’t common yet, but there was no reason for them to believe the technology wouldn’t be improved.
It’s not blatantly false, it took the most famous master marksman of the revolutionary war three shots to hit a stationary target. Those weapons were imprecise, objectively speaking.
The founding fathers weren’t visionaries, they were just people who lived in a particular time period and wrote laws appropriate to that time period. I don’t think they would necessarily be all that upset if someone was to travel back in time and tell them that people 200 years later wanted to change the rules because they no longer worked. So whatever they motivations may have been at the time are irrelevant.
I mean they literally said they expected the constitution to be rewritten ever couple decades. They absolutely were visionaries and envisioned exactly the type of changes modern-day conservatives abhor.
They weren’t idiots either. They weren’t stupid enough to think technology was static and would never improve, firearms technology was literally improving during their lifetime. They wrote the constitution the way they did deliberately. The constitution was meant to be a living document, true, but the only reason to change that amendment is, simply put, fascism.
The reason is people dying because in america if someone gets upset they have a gun within arms reach. How many shooting deaths every year do you need to see before you would consider it a problem? Because apparently 14,000 gun deaths in a year is not even close to a problem for you.
Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball-sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbor’s dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot, “Tally ho lads” the grapeshot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Does a fairly daft bit about everyone having guns that needs removing. You can get on that.
That law was added when guns were so imprecise it was difficult to hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn. It wasn’t designed for guns with fire rates in excess of one round every 5 minutes. Back then if somebody went on a shooting spree you could just walk up to them and punch them while they were in the middle of reloading.
Exactly, bullets weren’t even invented yet when they wrote the Constitution, but “conservatives” believe all these modern weapons are exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect.
That’s blatantly false. Timothy Murphy killed a British officer during the Revolutionary War at a distance of 300-400 yards. They absolutely had the capability of precise marksmanship at the time the constitution was written. Repeating rifles were not a foreign concept either. They weren’t common yet, but there was no reason for them to believe the technology wouldn’t be improved.
It’s not blatantly false, it took the most famous master marksman of the revolutionary war three shots to hit a stationary target. Those weapons were imprecise, objectively speaking.
How is that not blatantly false? Piss off troll.
It’s hyperbole “hitting the broadside of a barn” is a common expression in the US
The founding fathers weren’t visionaries, they were just people who lived in a particular time period and wrote laws appropriate to that time period. I don’t think they would necessarily be all that upset if someone was to travel back in time and tell them that people 200 years later wanted to change the rules because they no longer worked. So whatever they motivations may have been at the time are irrelevant.
I mean they literally said they expected the constitution to be rewritten ever couple decades. They absolutely were visionaries and envisioned exactly the type of changes modern-day conservatives abhor.
They weren’t idiots either. They weren’t stupid enough to think technology was static and would never improve, firearms technology was literally improving during their lifetime. They wrote the constitution the way they did deliberately. The constitution was meant to be a living document, true, but the only reason to change that amendment is, simply put, fascism.
The reason is people dying because in america if someone gets upset they have a gun within arms reach. How many shooting deaths every year do you need to see before you would consider it a problem? Because apparently 14,000 gun deaths in a year is not even close to a problem for you.
A feddit.uk account winging about Americans having too many guns? You planning something lobsterback? (This is a joke btw)
Well given the fact that the US navy don’t appear to be able to secure a narrow stretch of water maybe we’d have a chance.
Although given the fact that the prize would be the United States perhaps it’s not worth it.
I can assure you it is not worth it. In fact, can I come live in your country? I’ll buy the first round at the pub
Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball-sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbor’s dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot, “Tally ho lads” the grapeshot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.