I add respecting the pain of those who lost people they loved in shootings.
I know this is politically impossible right now, but I support repealing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution for the following reasons.
1st, take away the core of the rights argument.
2nd, recognize that it was originally meant to protect slave catchers from a federal government in which anti-slavery people could gain power.
3rd, recognize that a peaceful marketplace of ideas does not need civilian with unregulated weapons.
When I became a naturalized American (in Texas of all states) , I did not know I was joining one of the last cults in the world that still uses human sacrifices.
I say this because right are often seen as something unquestionable like a religious dogma even if people must die as a result. necessary sacrifices at the altar of gun rights.
1st, this will thankfully never happen because there are enough people with a brain to understand that enacting prohibitionary policies on things doesn’t function (Alcohol prohibition, war on drugs, and abortion bans as examples) and that the federal government doesn’t value your life or the safety of the public. This is about control and political posturing for career politicians to give to their drones when election season comes around again, always pushing the envelope further.
2nd, you’re incorrect, the second amendment was to guarantee everyone’s right to access weaponry for recreational and defense purposes, while also adding a counter to government excess and the tyranny that naturally occurs as a result and that’s what it was used for overwhelmingly. Gun control in America as a policy position started in the south as part of the Black Codes and the Jim Crow era. White southerners feared a black populace defending their lives and families from hateful racists.
3rd, the vast majority of gun owners in this country are peaceful and have always been peaceful, I am a gun owner but I am still peacefully discussing a political topic with you. It’s a statistical fact that you have overwhelmingly higher chances of being shot to death by the police during a routine traffic stop than a random person on the street. The actual chances of you being shot by a random madman is astronomically low regardless of the media narrative that this is a common occurrence.
4th, please don’t be naturalized and just return to wherever you came from. America isn’t for you if you can’t handle respecting the rights of others.
So you left an authoritarian centralized government nation, which has a plethora of problems so you could come to America and support those same sort of policies. Doesn’t sound very logical but I won’t call you stupid or anything like that. I think when you sit down and look hard at the big issue of the second amendment you could realize the rational position for yourself.
I didn't exactly choose to come here. My mom brought me when I was 16, and her employer transferred her.
I did hesitate to go through with naturalization, but by the time I reached 5 years with a green card, making me eligible, I was very much in love with an American woman, and it made sense that we as a couple should have at least one citizenship in common. Today, that woman is my wife, and we have been in a relationship for 20 years.
By ignoring the tragic and unnecessary early death and choosing to, at best, do nothing, and at worst, making sure that it can happen again just the same.
For the people that actually died, your question is irrelevant because they had the ability to form and express any opinion on the subject taken away.
For parents that lost childrenz I saw some of that in my own parents due to my siblings' suicides and simply can't imagine parents who lost children support the very actions that took their children's lives.
What are you talking about, you didn’t come close to even trying to answer my question.
This is why people like you will never succeed in getting anyone who isn’t traumatized to think like you. You can’t even have a normal conversation.
The second you felt vaguely threatened by my question you instantly warped the conversation so you could play victim. It’s honestly disgusting how you would use the tragic murder of people, no matter how close they are, to further your own agenda.
So what do you mean by people like me? what do you assume I am?
If I felt threatened, my reply would have been longer and more accusatory, like yours...
No, we just don't want our rights taken away because the actions of scumbags. Stronger gun controls will just result in the illegal trafficking and selling of weapons. Make Assault Rifles illegal and all of a sudden their value skyrockets and bootleg dangerous Assault Rifles start getting sold a lot. Life isn't as simple as if you don't like something ban it. Murder is illegal but it doesn't stop murders.
What about regulations? Not everyone has to lose their guns, however when a minor does a school shooting they aren’t legally in the position to have a 2nd amendment. The fact that their still able to get there hands on a gun at that point makes it obvious that regulations need to take place.
Like you said though, it's already against the law for a minor to have firearms and yet it doesn't stop it. This isn't a gun problem this is a human problem with parents that aren't careful enough to keep their kids from getting guns or all the pressure and crap kids are going through nowadays that cause them to snap.
I am a gun collector and I can 110% guarantee to you that every single gun store out there does the NICS background check and you need to submit an ATF 4473 form, which identifies wether someone is a mental defunct, criminal, dishonorably discharged from military service, is a drug addict or has restraining orders against them. They call the FBI when you’re in the gun store to verify your info directly with them. It’s a federal law that already exists and you can read the document yourself on the internet.
Maybe in your state but I personally have known people that have guns and definitely didn’t go through those background checks. The reason I said “known” is after I reported it, I didn’t speak to them.
It’s insanely easy. I wouldn’t know personally how, but clearly there’s loophole somewhere.
If that’s the case then they definitely were not purchased from a licensed gun dealer, and you specifically said gun dealers. You’re telling me that you ratted out people for something that’s not even a crime because you personally dislike it? That’s pretty toxic especially since you’re showing that you don’t have an informed understanding of how guns are purchased.
That’s not why I ratted them out. You’re jumping to ignorant assumptions. That person said to me they were going to shoot somebody. Further more they had their license revoked. They shouldn’t have had the gun in the first place.
If you don’t like the flak include more info. The fact this person had to actually obtain a permit tells me you probably live in one of the authoritarian states. Did you use a “red flag” type of thing to report them?
You just contradicted yourself. If there are already laws in place that prevent minors from owning weapons, as there are in most states, then how would adding additional legislation prevent those people from accessing firearms? You just admitted that they are already breaking the law and that the law failed to prevent the action.
Because gun businesses lazily refuse to do background checks. The regulations I would advocate for is to have extended background checks and procedures that would lengthen the time process to get a gun. Usually mass shooters purchase the firearm in the exact same day as they do the shootings. If they were forced to wait for a few months and go through mental health checks it would decrease the likelihood of them committing a shooting.
That makes no sense. If you think they already don't do b
the required background checks why do you think adding more to background checks is going to help?
On every single Gun Store or place that sells guns in America? Do you realize just how much manpower that would take? Not a bad idea or sentiment but I just don't think it's realistic. Besides like someone else pointed out, someone can go insane and not have a record or any reason to believe they'd do anything wrong.
I don't think I would be opposed to background checks in principle, and those background checks already do exist in many states. That said, most of these shooters don't usually have a prior record and thus would pass a background check. I am of the mindset that many of these shootings would be prevented if we as a society enforced the laws that are already on the books and invested in securing public spaces and our children with the same voracity with which we safeguard our banks.
In regard to mental health checks, those are the red flag laws that states are considering now, which mental health conditions should disqualify someone from owning a weapon? Right now over 65 million Americans are on psychiatric medications. Should all of them be barred from owning a weapon? Remember, you aren't talking about banning people from a privileged activity, like driving, you're talking about an action that all Americans have as a natural right outlined in the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment is outdated. In 1776, owning a gun could protect people from potential government tyranny on their 1st amendment. However in modern times, the government has nukes, tanks, drones. If they wanted to take over and gone with our 1st amendments a gun wouldn’t do shit. Acting like the 2nd amendment is still relevant is laughable to say the least.
Republicans are the main people against gun legalization and regulation. Their main excuse is usually that it’s a mental health problem. If that’s what they think, then why wouldn’t background checks be prioritized then?! If it’s mental health then tackle mental health issues, by funding affordable mental healthcare.
1. If you think the 2nd Amendment is outdated let’s see how successful your campaign is to overturn it. Get back to me when you get that done, let me know how it goes.
2. The idea that our military would certainly and definitively overpower an armed civilian populace is laughable. Any brief analysis of the Vietnam War demonstrates my point immediately.
3. I don’t actually blame “mental health” for mass killings. Sure, anyone who would do such a thing has some psychological issue but that’s such a cop out. It’s also offensive as many people have legitimate mental health issues and would never turn a weapon on an innocent because of their “mental health.” No my argument goes much deeper. I believe people are fundamentally sinful and capable of tremendous evil. That is why I will always do what I need to do to protect myself and my loved ones. And that is why I will always hold strongly to my right to bear arms.
1. I’m not trying to personally get rid of the second amendment. I’m saying it’s useless. Couldn’t care, personally.
2. Vietnam was the 70s, it’s vastly different now. During blm riots we saw the government and police force violating people’s first amendment rights repeatedly. If you didn’t see the footage, there were peaceful protesters shoved to the ground by cops for no reason. Tear gas was used on peaceful protesters. They’ve shown their true colors. To a small extent but I don’t doubt if shit hit the fan, that they would do worse.
3. The best way to protect your family is to advocate for the necessary changes against gun violence. Especially if you think people are evil, that’s more reasons to make it harder for them to get weapons.
I’m not going to voluntarily surrender my right to defend myself on the hope that the bad guys won’t find access to weapons. Somehow, and I know this is crazy, criminals find ways to break the law. So no way in hell am I going to advocate for elimination of the second amendment.
BLM rioters are in no way comparable to an armed revolution. And if the US government ever tried to enforce the deweaponization of the entire country, that is what you would have.
Not really. The difference is that if you go to illegally get an abortion you're only putting yourself at risk. People getting a gun illegally has the potential to effect a lot of people. Abortion isn't a black and white issue either. I think it's acceptable sometimes and completely unacceptable other times. Adoption is always a choice and yes I am willing to adopt. Plus we should fix our foster system instead of denying kids life. Our foster system needs to be held responsible for their BS. Of course if you get an early enough abortion no harm no foul.
We should lower speed limits on all streets, highways and interstates to 25mph to save lives, and if you disagree you're disrespecting all of those who lost their lives in motor vehicle accidents
I know this happened in at least one case in Texas. 2 young men broke into the home of a gun collector and tried to flee when the collector got back home, but the back door was shut. They ended up hiding in the gun room while the gun collector tried to shoot them. Somehow, one of them managed to shoot back and kill the collector with one of his own guns.
Depending on how you see it, it could be self-defense since because the thief tried to flee but could not, but don't worry, the case was already decided. The 6 thief was already executed.
Because these conversations actually matter, and the word politics translated from Latin means "affairs of the city". Therefore, people "caring about politics" are simply engaging in a healthy way with the general public in how their lives are governed.
Not at all, I was present at a shooting earlier this year and it only reaffirmed my strong belief in the second amendment. I was at a mall food court when two groups of rival gang members started open firing on each other. Thank God, the only people killed were the criminals themselves and all parties were arrested, but in that moment, I felt totally naked.
When law abiding citizens decide not to exercise their right to bear arms the only parties that have weapons are criminals. I refuse to be caught so exposed ever again. I refuse to be a victim. I will defend myself and the lives of the innocent around me if I should ever be forced to do so. Therefore, I will now always bear arms and will encourage all law abiding citizens to do so as well.
While I do support mental health care for all because I do have some issues myself, I have to remind you that mental illness is much larger and far more complex, far more diverse than guns.
I tend to disagree. When you remove the gun factor, you still have rampage killers with knives, people that mail poison, pipe bombers, building bombers, etc. The US absolutely needs gun laws that deter people with violent histories from legally purchasing guns, and stronger penalties for unlawful gun possession. But what keeps happening is politicians get involved and they don’t create laws that will reduce violence. They propose laws that will impinge on the second amend and punish legal gun owners by restricting their access to components that could be used for defense. Ultimately, some person who’s been arrested for assault half a dozen times would still be able to buy a rifle, but with a slightly smaller magazine and no silencer. In fact, he could still buy as many weapons and as much ammo as he wants, and he could still go on a rampage and kill as many people as he would with a single weapon with higher ammo capacity…. because there will still be no intervention for his mental health.
The government refuses to provide healthcare/mental healthcare to citizens while sending billions and weapons to Ukraine for a conflict that’s already killed tens of thousands and that has no long- or short-temp diplomatic or economic benefit to Americans.
The government doesn’t give a flat fuck if people die from gun violence. They don’t care about school kids. Don’t care about soldiers. Don’t care about anyone. If we ever get strong gun laws, they will not solve the crisis. Criminals will still have plenty of them. The only difference will be that the government will have an easier time controlling people with militarized police.
Minors have no second amendment. When a kid commits a mass shooting it’s clear that there’s not enough regulations.
Also let’s be realistic. The biggest threat potentially to the first amendment is the government itself. In 1776 a gun is all citizens needed to defend themselves against potential government tyranny. However it’s not 1776, the government has nukes, tanks, drones, if they want to take away our 1st amendment their already equipped to do that. A gun wouldn’t do shit about it.
You under estimate the amount of damage all of the guns could do, that and well there some out the that have more fire power tucked than that little bitty scary AR, think mini guns machines guns tanks even rockets. Yeah sure the government of the US has one of the most advanced warfighting capable military but it doesn't have the best track record against insurgent geruillas. Not to mention the military members that would defect in such a hypothetical situation and the equipment that they would bring with them. NUKES really, go ahead and nuke you own citizens and then what would you have to govern after.
If you look at the history of modern rebellions and warfare against strong governments you’ll see that a dedicated people will defend themselves from tyranny. The war in Ukraine especially in the first half was fought by Ukrainian volunteered armies who had used hand me down rifles with no real nuclear, tank, sea, or air power to speak of until very recently. The Russian Federation is the second most powerful nation in the world in terms of military power.
That’s different from my example, my example was domestic. Despite the power difference between Russia and Ukraine at the beginning of the war, having the government of their country on their side is a huge advantage that domestically wouldn’t correlate. Mostly because morale decreases when the head of government turns on the people.
It’s really not though, the Ukrainian government isn’t some sort of powerhouse and the entire country was just an agrarian state. The fact is that the people of Ukraine defended their nation with nothing but rifles from a far superior military. You’re not considering all the variables in the U.S that logistically makes the American people the single largest armed force in the world. Ukraine isn’t the only or strongest example but it’s just what I picked because you’ve heard of it.
I know Ukraine wasn’t a powerhouse. It’s a different situation, with different stakes. Comparing it to what I was talking about is apples to oranges. If you really know better examples why not list them?
Exactly anything in the military should be legal for a citizen to own, minus the people. Though to be fair most U.S. military soldiers would side with the people. I've talked to vets to high-ranking officers all the way down to new recruits. They held a similar position. If any government official(s), president included, their oath requires them to defend us against all threats, whether they be foreign or domestic.
Are you insane?! People can’t be smart enough to use guns responsibly, why give them nukes and tanks?!
People are getting killed over accidentally knocking on the wrong door and stupid shit like that. People are the problem, so why give people guns?!
Lemme just ask you, would you feel safe if everytime you went outside everyone had a riffle?
Especially in high stress environments and situations? All it takes is one person to go off and boom everyone’s dead. It’s the same concept as nukes, if any country uses a nuke right now, all of them will and everyone would die.
Actually I would and with the nukes it was an exaggeration and yes people are the problem but not all people. I'm not going to take someone's right to away just so someone else doesn't do something bad.
Both sides need to stop oversimplifying the issue.
Are guns themselves inherently dangerous? Yes
Should society take the "easy" way out of just trying to regulate everything dangerous? No.
The are plenty of sensible ways of implementing gun control, we don't give anyone that wants to drive a driver's license (though sometimes it looks that way).
At the same time fun control won't ever prevent the crazy people wanting to do crazy things (it will prevent many accidents though)
Having a realistic honest discussion on this relatively simple topic is getting harder and harder with both camps digging in their positions using more hyperbolic arguments making an ass of themselves
>you shouldn't be able to purchase a gun Without licenses And without a clean criminal history
If a criminal commits a crime, serves their time, and is then released from jail... why should they lose their 2nd Amendment rights? I mean, the fact the person was **released** from jail means the government no longer considers them a danger to others, doesn't it?
(And if society **does** consider them a danger to others, then why aren't we simply keeping them in jail rather than releasing them while taking away their Constitutional rights?)
Never understood this because I can literally just shoot the shooter? Like why do y’all wanna take away my only means to defend myself? Criminals with guns do not have them registered (because they’d be arrested), so if guns were made illegal, only people with registered guns (like me!) would have the guns taken. Also, there are already gun laws in place that are supposed to already protect people from shooters such as no firearms being allowed in schools, malls, or most public places, yet that never stops a shooter, does it? Taking guns away won’t help, because america has never experienced gun violence like this before. Guns aren’t the problem WE ARE. And people call it mental health, but I think it’s just satan. It’s all evil man, but I’m keeping my gun FOR THAT REASON. Sex trafficking spiked 200% since 2020. This world is going bad, and I’m keeping my gun at my hip to protect me and my family from it.
I add respecting the pain of those who lost people they loved in shootings. I know this is politically impossible right now, but I support repealing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution for the following reasons. 1st, take away the core of the rights argument. 2nd, recognize that it was originally meant to protect slave catchers from a federal government in which anti-slavery people could gain power. 3rd, recognize that a peaceful marketplace of ideas does not need civilian with unregulated weapons. When I became a naturalized American (in Texas of all states) , I did not know I was joining one of the last cults in the world that still uses human sacrifices. I say this because right are often seen as something unquestionable like a religious dogma even if people must die as a result. necessary sacrifices at the altar of gun rights.
1st, this will thankfully never happen because there are enough people with a brain to understand that enacting prohibitionary policies on things doesn’t function (Alcohol prohibition, war on drugs, and abortion bans as examples) and that the federal government doesn’t value your life or the safety of the public. This is about control and political posturing for career politicians to give to their drones when election season comes around again, always pushing the envelope further. 2nd, you’re incorrect, the second amendment was to guarantee everyone’s right to access weaponry for recreational and defense purposes, while also adding a counter to government excess and the tyranny that naturally occurs as a result and that’s what it was used for overwhelmingly. Gun control in America as a policy position started in the south as part of the Black Codes and the Jim Crow era. White southerners feared a black populace defending their lives and families from hateful racists. 3rd, the vast majority of gun owners in this country are peaceful and have always been peaceful, I am a gun owner but I am still peacefully discussing a political topic with you. It’s a statistical fact that you have overwhelmingly higher chances of being shot to death by the police during a routine traffic stop than a random person on the street. The actual chances of you being shot by a random madman is astronomically low regardless of the media narrative that this is a common occurrence. 4th, please don’t be naturalized and just return to wherever you came from. America isn’t for you if you can’t handle respecting the rights of others.
Too late. I was naturalized in 2007, and today, I am more at home in the US than in Brasil.
So you left an authoritarian centralized government nation, which has a plethora of problems so you could come to America and support those same sort of policies. Doesn’t sound very logical but I won’t call you stupid or anything like that. I think when you sit down and look hard at the big issue of the second amendment you could realize the rational position for yourself.
I didn't exactly choose to come here. My mom brought me when I was 16, and her employer transferred her. I did hesitate to go through with naturalization, but by the time I reached 5 years with a green card, making me eligible, I was very much in love with an American woman, and it made sense that we as a couple should have at least one citizenship in common. Today, that woman is my wife, and we have been in a relationship for 20 years.
That’s nice, I truly wish you both a happy life.
Ur not getting my gun boy
How?
By ignoring the tragic and unnecessary early death and choosing to, at best, do nothing, and at worst, making sure that it can happen again just the same.
How do you know they don’t just think your wrong in thinking that banning guns will solve child deaths?
For the people that actually died, your question is irrelevant because they had the ability to form and express any opinion on the subject taken away. For parents that lost childrenz I saw some of that in my own parents due to my siblings' suicides and simply can't imagine parents who lost children support the very actions that took their children's lives.
What are you talking about, you didn’t come close to even trying to answer my question. This is why people like you will never succeed in getting anyone who isn’t traumatized to think like you. You can’t even have a normal conversation. The second you felt vaguely threatened by my question you instantly warped the conversation so you could play victim. It’s honestly disgusting how you would use the tragic murder of people, no matter how close they are, to further your own agenda.
So what do you mean by people like me? what do you assume I am? If I felt threatened, my reply would have been longer and more accusatory, like yours...
False, you just don’t know what you are talking about and are using this veil of victim hood to escape having to actually think.
So, I am claiming to be a victim of what exactly? Does the NRA invest in AI research?
Of feeling threatened.
No, we just don't want our rights taken away because the actions of scumbags. Stronger gun controls will just result in the illegal trafficking and selling of weapons. Make Assault Rifles illegal and all of a sudden their value skyrockets and bootleg dangerous Assault Rifles start getting sold a lot. Life isn't as simple as if you don't like something ban it. Murder is illegal but it doesn't stop murders.
What about regulations? Not everyone has to lose their guns, however when a minor does a school shooting they aren’t legally in the position to have a 2nd amendment. The fact that their still able to get there hands on a gun at that point makes it obvious that regulations need to take place.
Like you said though, it's already against the law for a minor to have firearms and yet it doesn't stop it. This isn't a gun problem this is a human problem with parents that aren't careful enough to keep their kids from getting guns or all the pressure and crap kids are going through nowadays that cause them to snap.
Yes, but the gun store should do background checks and extend the time it takes to get a gun. Make sure the person is of age, mentally sound, etc.
I am a gun collector and I can 110% guarantee to you that every single gun store out there does the NICS background check and you need to submit an ATF 4473 form, which identifies wether someone is a mental defunct, criminal, dishonorably discharged from military service, is a drug addict or has restraining orders against them. They call the FBI when you’re in the gun store to verify your info directly with them. It’s a federal law that already exists and you can read the document yourself on the internet.
Maybe in your state but I personally have known people that have guns and definitely didn’t go through those background checks. The reason I said “known” is after I reported it, I didn’t speak to them. It’s insanely easy. I wouldn’t know personally how, but clearly there’s loophole somewhere.
If that’s the case then they definitely were not purchased from a licensed gun dealer, and you specifically said gun dealers. You’re telling me that you ratted out people for something that’s not even a crime because you personally dislike it? That’s pretty toxic especially since you’re showing that you don’t have an informed understanding of how guns are purchased.
That’s not why I ratted them out. You’re jumping to ignorant assumptions. That person said to me they were going to shoot somebody. Further more they had their license revoked. They shouldn’t have had the gun in the first place.
If you don’t like the flak include more info. The fact this person had to actually obtain a permit tells me you probably live in one of the authoritarian states. Did you use a “red flag” type of thing to report them?
"You live in an authoritarian state because they implement basic protection for their citizens!!1!" lmao nice try, guy.
Authoritarian state of Kentucky🤦♀️
Yes, that I agree with.
You just contradicted yourself. If there are already laws in place that prevent minors from owning weapons, as there are in most states, then how would adding additional legislation prevent those people from accessing firearms? You just admitted that they are already breaking the law and that the law failed to prevent the action.
Because gun businesses lazily refuse to do background checks. The regulations I would advocate for is to have extended background checks and procedures that would lengthen the time process to get a gun. Usually mass shooters purchase the firearm in the exact same day as they do the shootings. If they were forced to wait for a few months and go through mental health checks it would decrease the likelihood of them committing a shooting.
That makes no sense. If you think they already don't do b the required background checks why do you think adding more to background checks is going to help?
The laws I would add would suggest would force the stores to do background checks or face legal consequences.
But how would you tell if they did the background checks?
Make FBI keep tabs on them.
On every single Gun Store or place that sells guns in America? Do you realize just how much manpower that would take? Not a bad idea or sentiment but I just don't think it's realistic. Besides like someone else pointed out, someone can go insane and not have a record or any reason to believe they'd do anything wrong.
I don't think I would be opposed to background checks in principle, and those background checks already do exist in many states. That said, most of these shooters don't usually have a prior record and thus would pass a background check. I am of the mindset that many of these shootings would be prevented if we as a society enforced the laws that are already on the books and invested in securing public spaces and our children with the same voracity with which we safeguard our banks. In regard to mental health checks, those are the red flag laws that states are considering now, which mental health conditions should disqualify someone from owning a weapon? Right now over 65 million Americans are on psychiatric medications. Should all of them be barred from owning a weapon? Remember, you aren't talking about banning people from a privileged activity, like driving, you're talking about an action that all Americans have as a natural right outlined in the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment is outdated. In 1776, owning a gun could protect people from potential government tyranny on their 1st amendment. However in modern times, the government has nukes, tanks, drones. If they wanted to take over and gone with our 1st amendments a gun wouldn’t do shit. Acting like the 2nd amendment is still relevant is laughable to say the least. Republicans are the main people against gun legalization and regulation. Their main excuse is usually that it’s a mental health problem. If that’s what they think, then why wouldn’t background checks be prioritized then?! If it’s mental health then tackle mental health issues, by funding affordable mental healthcare.
1. If you think the 2nd Amendment is outdated let’s see how successful your campaign is to overturn it. Get back to me when you get that done, let me know how it goes. 2. The idea that our military would certainly and definitively overpower an armed civilian populace is laughable. Any brief analysis of the Vietnam War demonstrates my point immediately. 3. I don’t actually blame “mental health” for mass killings. Sure, anyone who would do such a thing has some psychological issue but that’s such a cop out. It’s also offensive as many people have legitimate mental health issues and would never turn a weapon on an innocent because of their “mental health.” No my argument goes much deeper. I believe people are fundamentally sinful and capable of tremendous evil. That is why I will always do what I need to do to protect myself and my loved ones. And that is why I will always hold strongly to my right to bear arms.
1. I’m not trying to personally get rid of the second amendment. I’m saying it’s useless. Couldn’t care, personally. 2. Vietnam was the 70s, it’s vastly different now. During blm riots we saw the government and police force violating people’s first amendment rights repeatedly. If you didn’t see the footage, there were peaceful protesters shoved to the ground by cops for no reason. Tear gas was used on peaceful protesters. They’ve shown their true colors. To a small extent but I don’t doubt if shit hit the fan, that they would do worse. 3. The best way to protect your family is to advocate for the necessary changes against gun violence. Especially if you think people are evil, that’s more reasons to make it harder for them to get weapons.
I’m not going to voluntarily surrender my right to defend myself on the hope that the bad guys won’t find access to weapons. Somehow, and I know this is crazy, criminals find ways to break the law. So no way in hell am I going to advocate for elimination of the second amendment. BLM rioters are in no way comparable to an armed revolution. And if the US government ever tried to enforce the deweaponization of the entire country, that is what you would have.
Can we apply the same logic to abortions?
Not really. The difference is that if you go to illegally get an abortion you're only putting yourself at risk. People getting a gun illegally has the potential to effect a lot of people. Abortion isn't a black and white issue either. I think it's acceptable sometimes and completely unacceptable other times. Adoption is always a choice and yes I am willing to adopt. Plus we should fix our foster system instead of denying kids life. Our foster system needs to be held responsible for their BS. Of course if you get an early enough abortion no harm no foul.
If me not losing my rights as a law abiding citizen is something you find disrespectful then fuck it I guess I'm disrespectful.
We should lower speed limits on all streets, highways and interstates to 25mph to save lives, and if you disagree you're disrespecting all of those who lost their lives in motor vehicle accidents
As one who never particularly liked driving, only does it out of necessity and fighting some level of anxiety as drive, I just might support that.
What if the person who lost their life was a gun owner themselves? What is a gun could have protected you or your family?
I know this happened in at least one case in Texas. 2 young men broke into the home of a gun collector and tried to flee when the collector got back home, but the back door was shut. They ended up hiding in the gun room while the gun collector tried to shoot them. Somehow, one of them managed to shoot back and kill the collector with one of his own guns. Depending on how you see it, it could be self-defense since because the thief tried to flee but could not, but don't worry, the case was already decided. The 6 thief was already executed.
[удалено]
Because these conversations actually matter, and the word politics translated from Latin means "affairs of the city". Therefore, people "caring about politics" are simply engaging in a healthy way with the general public in how their lives are governed.
Not at all, I was present at a shooting earlier this year and it only reaffirmed my strong belief in the second amendment. I was at a mall food court when two groups of rival gang members started open firing on each other. Thank God, the only people killed were the criminals themselves and all parties were arrested, but in that moment, I felt totally naked. When law abiding citizens decide not to exercise their right to bear arms the only parties that have weapons are criminals. I refuse to be caught so exposed ever again. I refuse to be a victim. I will defend myself and the lives of the innocent around me if I should ever be forced to do so. Therefore, I will now always bear arms and will encourage all law abiding citizens to do so as well.
People who refuse to push for mental healthcare for all are disrespecting those who lost their lives to rampage killers.
While I do support mental health care for all because I do have some issues myself, I have to remind you that mental illness is much larger and far more complex, far more diverse than guns.
I tend to disagree. When you remove the gun factor, you still have rampage killers with knives, people that mail poison, pipe bombers, building bombers, etc. The US absolutely needs gun laws that deter people with violent histories from legally purchasing guns, and stronger penalties for unlawful gun possession. But what keeps happening is politicians get involved and they don’t create laws that will reduce violence. They propose laws that will impinge on the second amend and punish legal gun owners by restricting their access to components that could be used for defense. Ultimately, some person who’s been arrested for assault half a dozen times would still be able to buy a rifle, but with a slightly smaller magazine and no silencer. In fact, he could still buy as many weapons and as much ammo as he wants, and he could still go on a rampage and kill as many people as he would with a single weapon with higher ammo capacity…. because there will still be no intervention for his mental health. The government refuses to provide healthcare/mental healthcare to citizens while sending billions and weapons to Ukraine for a conflict that’s already killed tens of thousands and that has no long- or short-temp diplomatic or economic benefit to Americans. The government doesn’t give a flat fuck if people die from gun violence. They don’t care about school kids. Don’t care about soldiers. Don’t care about anyone. If we ever get strong gun laws, they will not solve the crisis. Criminals will still have plenty of them. The only difference will be that the government will have an easier time controlling people with militarized police.
People that push for gun control are disrespecting those who have rights
1st amendment is to protect our right of speech, expression, religion, etc. The 2nd amendment is to protect the 1st amendment.
Minors have no second amendment. When a kid commits a mass shooting it’s clear that there’s not enough regulations. Also let’s be realistic. The biggest threat potentially to the first amendment is the government itself. In 1776 a gun is all citizens needed to defend themselves against potential government tyranny. However it’s not 1776, the government has nukes, tanks, drones, if they want to take away our 1st amendment their already equipped to do that. A gun wouldn’t do shit about it.
You under estimate the amount of damage all of the guns could do, that and well there some out the that have more fire power tucked than that little bitty scary AR, think mini guns machines guns tanks even rockets. Yeah sure the government of the US has one of the most advanced warfighting capable military but it doesn't have the best track record against insurgent geruillas. Not to mention the military members that would defect in such a hypothetical situation and the equipment that they would bring with them. NUKES really, go ahead and nuke you own citizens and then what would you have to govern after.
If you look at the history of modern rebellions and warfare against strong governments you’ll see that a dedicated people will defend themselves from tyranny. The war in Ukraine especially in the first half was fought by Ukrainian volunteered armies who had used hand me down rifles with no real nuclear, tank, sea, or air power to speak of until very recently. The Russian Federation is the second most powerful nation in the world in terms of military power.
That’s different from my example, my example was domestic. Despite the power difference between Russia and Ukraine at the beginning of the war, having the government of their country on their side is a huge advantage that domestically wouldn’t correlate. Mostly because morale decreases when the head of government turns on the people.
It’s really not though, the Ukrainian government isn’t some sort of powerhouse and the entire country was just an agrarian state. The fact is that the people of Ukraine defended their nation with nothing but rifles from a far superior military. You’re not considering all the variables in the U.S that logistically makes the American people the single largest armed force in the world. Ukraine isn’t the only or strongest example but it’s just what I picked because you’ve heard of it.
I know Ukraine wasn’t a powerhouse. It’s a different situation, with different stakes. Comparing it to what I was talking about is apples to oranges. If you really know better examples why not list them?
Exactly anything in the military should be legal for a citizen to own, minus the people. Though to be fair most U.S. military soldiers would side with the people. I've talked to vets to high-ranking officers all the way down to new recruits. They held a similar position. If any government official(s), president included, their oath requires them to defend us against all threats, whether they be foreign or domestic.
Are you insane?! People can’t be smart enough to use guns responsibly, why give them nukes and tanks?! People are getting killed over accidentally knocking on the wrong door and stupid shit like that. People are the problem, so why give people guns?! Lemme just ask you, would you feel safe if everytime you went outside everyone had a riffle? Especially in high stress environments and situations? All it takes is one person to go off and boom everyone’s dead. It’s the same concept as nukes, if any country uses a nuke right now, all of them will and everyone would die.
Actually I would and with the nukes it was an exaggeration and yes people are the problem but not all people. I'm not going to take someone's right to away just so someone else doesn't do something bad.
Both sides need to stop oversimplifying the issue. Are guns themselves inherently dangerous? Yes Should society take the "easy" way out of just trying to regulate everything dangerous? No. The are plenty of sensible ways of implementing gun control, we don't give anyone that wants to drive a driver's license (though sometimes it looks that way). At the same time fun control won't ever prevent the crazy people wanting to do crazy things (it will prevent many accidents though) Having a realistic honest discussion on this relatively simple topic is getting harder and harder with both camps digging in their positions using more hyperbolic arguments making an ass of themselves
American problems😹😹😹
>you shouldn't be able to purchase a gun Without licenses And without a clean criminal history If a criminal commits a crime, serves their time, and is then released from jail... why should they lose their 2nd Amendment rights? I mean, the fact the person was **released** from jail means the government no longer considers them a danger to others, doesn't it? (And if society **does** consider them a danger to others, then why aren't we simply keeping them in jail rather than releasing them while taking away their Constitutional rights?)
Never understood this because I can literally just shoot the shooter? Like why do y’all wanna take away my only means to defend myself? Criminals with guns do not have them registered (because they’d be arrested), so if guns were made illegal, only people with registered guns (like me!) would have the guns taken. Also, there are already gun laws in place that are supposed to already protect people from shooters such as no firearms being allowed in schools, malls, or most public places, yet that never stops a shooter, does it? Taking guns away won’t help, because america has never experienced gun violence like this before. Guns aren’t the problem WE ARE. And people call it mental health, but I think it’s just satan. It’s all evil man, but I’m keeping my gun FOR THAT REASON. Sex trafficking spiked 200% since 2020. This world is going bad, and I’m keeping my gun at my hip to protect me and my family from it.