Or, hear me out, we make it easy for everyone to own a self defence weapon, best is probably a gun, so that EVERYWHERE can be safe since everyone can easily defend themselves.
Allow easy access to weapons knowing some may make their way into the hands of lunatics
Or
Attempt to deprive certain people of guns with legislation knowing that criminals will always get them and YOU might be deprived of guns with a change in leadership
I'm going with the first option, at least I can defend myself and those I care about with that option.
If society goes to shit remember that the law of nature is strictly right wing, leftism only makes sense to those who believe decades of degenerate philosophies.
How many do you think are going to start a fire fight when they know their opponent is armed?
It's all well going "But Them™ will also have guns, what about Us™?", but it doesn't really mean a whole lot when talking about defence. They're armed and they decided to assault you? Then you shoot the fuck back. It's that simple.
An originalist reading of the Constitution would agree with you because women weren't armed aside from guns their husbands gave them. Women also couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written, that's how much more important gun ownership is.
Women also couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written
That's not at all true. Voting wasn't universal even for men back then. Still isn't universal for men technically. But back then, voting rights were tied and dependent on land ownership. This meant that women who owned land, which there were some (admittedly overwhelmingly widowers), were allowed to vote.
This same rule applied to men until it later changed, and in the US, men still don't have universal suffrage, as their vote is tied to signing their body away to the Selective Service (AKA the draft), which is also tied to a bunch of other things like their Social Security Number and all else that entails a person to.
Unless you own land, an originalist reading of the Constitution would probably strip you of your voting rights as well.
Or, hear me out, we make it easy for everyone to own a self defence weapon, best is probably a gun, so that EVERYWHERE can be safe since everyone can easily defend themselves.
A polite society is an armed society.
That would include members of Antifa and those on the left who believe that speech and causing offence can be as deadly as a bullet?
If the only two options available are:
Or
I'm going with the first option, at least I can defend myself and those I care about with that option.
Escalation would be good.
If society goes to shit remember that the law of nature is strictly right wing, leftism only makes sense to those who believe decades of degenerate philosophies.
How many do you think are going to start a fire fight when they know their opponent is armed?
It's all well going "But Them™ will also have guns, what about Us™?", but it doesn't really mean a whole lot when talking about defence. They're armed and they decided to assault you? Then you shoot the fuck back. It's that simple.
Time and time again ANTIFA and other leftist activists have shown how truly incompetent they are, especially when they're armed.
Mandatory carry.
No. Women should not be armed. Ever.
Of course, such infringement on the 2A would destroy America, but any future nation should make sure they aren't armed.
Nah, won't be a problem, sure they can handle handguns and rifles but that's what body armour is for.
There isn't much body armour that can handle a 50 cal or a 4 gauge shotgun and not as many women that can handle that recoil /s
2A applies to people, not property.
Make women property again and we'll solve 90% of the West's problems.
The remaining 10% is left as an exercise for the reader.
How long ago were women property? Surely long before 2a.
An originalist reading of the Constitution would agree with you because women weren't armed aside from guns their husbands gave them. Women also couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written, that's how much more important gun ownership is.
That's not at all true. Voting wasn't universal even for men back then. Still isn't universal for men technically. But back then, voting rights were tied and dependent on land ownership. This meant that women who owned land, which there were some (admittedly overwhelmingly widowers), were allowed to vote.
This same rule applied to men until it later changed, and in the US, men still don't have universal suffrage, as their vote is tied to signing their body away to the Selective Service (AKA the draft), which is also tied to a bunch of other things like their Social Security Number and all else that entails a person to.
Unless you own land, an originalist reading of the Constitution would probably strip you of your voting rights as well.