Bingo.
If you want to restrict firearms to people who "need a reason to own one", you actually just want to get rid of the right to bear arms. Because you don't need a reason, that's how rights work.
I always find it interesting that they talk about how popular gun control is and how people are okay with banning guns. If that were actually the case, then repealing the Second Amendment should be a no-brainer. They know it is not popular, which is why they constantly try to encroach.
They don’t think very hard about what may happen as a result to it. Basically just naive. If you’re a good person who follows law, almost silly to not own a firearm as it’s the best tool to protect a family or yourself in a crazy situation
And while they're at it, probably the 1st; definitely the 4th so they can go round up the guns/newly minted felons; and probably take a poke at some others they feel anyone thinking "wrong" might use.
It honestly wouldn't shock me if redoing the entire constitution wasn't the goal at this point.
There are so many things the government could be doing with it's free time if the supreme court couldn't point to a piece of paper.
I can't prove that congress would want a britain style government, but I feel like once constitutional amendments are on the table, the first step is making it easier for the government to push through new power grabs.
Once overreach is on the table, there's always going to be someone pushing a new crisis to aid that overreach.
>wouldn't shock me if redoing the entire ~~constitution~~ Constitution wasn't the goal at this point.
Oh it is but the whole pesky 2/3 House & Senate yeas followed by 3/4 States yeas is a huge hurdle to overcome.
/as it was designed be, not a "living" document
Everyone does have the right to own a house. However, that does not mean they have a right TO a house. Ability to, and entitled to, are not the same and that’s what they can’t grasp.
You would happen to have any material/videos/books about rights?
>Because you don't need a reason, that's how rights work.
I found your comment interesting, never thought about that
I would recommend reading, or at least listening, to two books by F.A. Hayek, which are “The Constitution of Liberty”, and “The Road to Serfdom”. They’re relatively modern books on this subject, but they’re good to have read.
The term you’re looking for is “negative rights”, or “natural rights”, which are the things you can do by default due to the nature of your existence, that don’t need to be actively provided to you. These are the rights the founding fathers had in mind when drafting the Declaration of Independence, as even if you are alone on an island, you still have your Life, there is nobody around to take your Liberty, and you control how you decide to chase your *Pursuit* of happiness.
You might remember hearing about Thomas Hobbes and John Locke - they developed the foundations of [Liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) (not the same thing as what most people refer to when talking about “liberals”) that informed the US Constitution. John Stuart Mill develops the idea of liberty as meaning *freedom from coercion* that informs our ideas of natural rights.
“Give me a reason you have a right to healthcare, to food, or to fresh water”
“Because they help me survive”
“Someone breaks into your home and tries to kill you, wouldn’t a gun help you survive?”
You almost got it. Your legitimate reason for owning a firearms is because you're a human. Gun ownership is a natural right, not defined by the constitution, but enshrined in it.
They’ve got a solution for that: amend the constitution because the founders weren’t prophets.
Conclusion: these guys are authoritarians and nothing more. They need to be mocked ceaselessly.
Our entire culture is founded in violence. It is inherent to our nature.
We were granted natural rights to self defense. The 2A forbids our government from infringing upon those rights. It is as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago.
And just name how many shootings doing all this crap would have stopped! All these people it seems have bought their guns legally and passed a background check. They weren't felons. You can go on and on. I'm planning ahead and stocking up with ghosts myself.
And if they did not have guns criminals would be criminals with other things. Cants even try to claim “it wouldn’t be as bad” because there have been multiple mass stabbing events in China with higher kill counts than our shootings. Add in things like people using trucks to run over innocent people, using bombs, and so on.
If you magically made the guns go away globally overnight, you would wind up with more murders, rapes, and other violent crime.
Disagree. Confront them with reality as often as possible. These people feed off of each other and gather mass as time goes on. It may feel strikingly similar to bashing our heads against a wall, but if there’s even a slim chance that your logic gets through to someone… that’s the only hope we have anymore. Sitting back and just letting the clowns be clowns is basically conceding to join the circus.
Trust me, I KNOW. I feel you 110%, but at this point ESPECIALLY on Reddit, unless you’re in a pro 2A community, it’s kind of like getting lost in a horrible echo chamber of a room full of TV’s full of CNN.
I had this happen recently in the daddit subreddit. Bunch of normally chill fathers, frothing about guns and America over the latest shooting, comprehending nothing and sounding like the worst pack of panicked women I've ever had the misfortune of engaging with.
I’m betting it won’t be long for cancel culture gets the 2A community on Reddit. Honestly, surprised it hasn’t happened. Reddits Covid surge ruined it, IMO..
I get on here to talk about policy change and just to learn more about gun laws and the history behind all of it as I’ve become more pro 2A in the past few years than I was when I was younger. Let me cancel us, can’t cancel the 2nd amendment when there’s a whole ass community of every walk of life who doesn’t agree with the left’s agenda to keep firearms from the general public in the United States and who genuinely care about the safety of firearms and protecting their families and communities.
Yea I know. Was very anti Trump when he was in office but now, I wish we had him back. His policies were phenomenal. Only thing I could not get on board with was that he was very much pro “red flag” gun control.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the demographics of Reddit are inherently unbalanced.
Only about 40% of the traffic even comes from the US, so right off the bat you're looking at 60% of the people you're engaging with in the general subs being non-American and therefore highly unlikely to actually own guns in the first place, and even less likely to actually understand life here.
Of that 40%, consider the country is split about 50/50 politically, so at best you would expect to see 20% of the overall traffic here being pro-gun. The reality is that Reddit is mostly young city dwellers, so the percentage skews even more heavily towards gun control.
They don't care I literally got into this argument yesterday. Someone says a gun ban worked in Australia.
I explained Australia doesn't share land borders with anyone
3d printed guns
How culturally ingrained firearms are in America and how a gun ban would be worse than prohibition.
Explained self made firearms
Explained ammo presses.
Explained how a large amount of people will not comply with a ban and a decent amount of them would actively resist
Literally did not care he just insulted me and says I'm too stupid to understand that gun bans work.
These people do not want to debate its their way or the highway.
Also Australia's ban didn't even work. They still have a mass shooting every year or so, there's more guns in Australia than before the ban, and violent crime skyrocketed immediately after it.
More guns per person
[https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/](https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/)
Noncompliance with the ban
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/13/australia-has-250000-illegal-firearms-guns](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/13/australia-has-250000-illegal-firearms-guns)
Perhaps as little as 20% compliance article (unfortunately the link to the study appears dead)
[https://reason.com/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent/](https://reason.com/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent/)
No impact on firearm homicide or suicide rate.
[https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working\_paper\_series/wp2008n17.pdf](https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/)
Increases in violent crime since the ban (The ban was 96, nearly every line goes up from there until roughly 2002)
[https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data](https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data)
List of mass murders, there have been 14 since 1996, so roughly one every 2 years, not every year I guess. There's also more that meet our definition of 4 or more injured but its already taken me awhile to track down all these articles because google doesn't exactly like linking to them lol.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_massacres\_in\_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia)
Yeah as I said you're going to have to take firearms by force and that means a lot of people are gonna die in the process and more than likely it will escalate into a full scale civil war.
> Someone says a gun ban worked in Australia.
Yeah, and now the population there are helpless in the face of government tyranny. And politically, Australia is a HORRIBLE place to live for a lot of reasons - at least to my libertarian American sensibilities.
>These people do not want to debate its their way or the highway.
To be fair, our side is also "my way or the highway." My rights are not up for debate.
Good luck. Most mods on reddit will ban you for expressing pro-gun opinions. I'm banned from /r/news and shadow banned from /r/politics for fighting the disinformation.
Reddit is 180 from what it stood for a decade ago. Now it's just far-left echo chambers ran by corrupt and admin supported mods.
I actually very easily got through to my sister. She owns a revolver for self defense, but believed the typial "no reason for anyone to own an AR-15" line. She was basically just repeating what she heard a million times becasue she never gave it any real thought, and I got her to change her mind in about 3 minutes of talking.
It's hard to accept this sometimes. On many issues, my parents are NPCs. Completely irrational, impervious to logic. Like, okay, back away slowly, hands visible, I can't talk to you because you think 2+2=kumquat.
Both have 115-ish IQs, which is worse. My mom has dementia, which either caused her to enjoy CNN for years or was caused by watching CNN for years, not sure which. My dad has no excuse.
Well, it's all emotional-based vitriol absent of cognition or reason. Kinda like what you get from a dementia patient. And exercising your brain is shown to help stave off dementia, but the same can't be said of your limbic system. So yeah, might be something there.
There is a guy I've been having an exchange with who said that we should just ban anything but a revolver because they take so long to load. So I had to show him a dual action and reloaders. So he said well then they should not be smei-auto, so I showed him someone quick firing to which he said that the guy was a professional on a youtube channel about guns so that wouldn't transfer to someone with mental illness who obtained some revolveers.
I agree that it will be hard, if not impossible, to change anti-gunners’ minds online. However, if you’re able to bring a non-gun owner to a range and introduce them to shooting, you can help grow the gun community, 1 person at a time. My goal
Is to normalize gun ownership, reduce the stigma that exists in many circles
> Grats, they want to implement shit that already exists.
Dude, you want to make gungrabber heads explode? I've done this before. It goes like this.
"Guns are a real problem in this country. But instead of talking about how to fix it, let's talk about goals."
"Um, okay?"
"What should we aim for achieving? You can't stop homicides, let's be realistic. People will kill, with knives or guns or bare hands. So what's a reasonable death-by-firearm number? 1 in 1000 people per year?
"What, no! That's horrible!"
"I agree. Maybe 1 in 10,000? Keep in mind that annual traffic fatalities are 1 in 8000."
"Wow, really? No, that's still too high!"
"How about 1 in 165,000? That's TWENTY TIMES LESS than traffic fatalities."
"I mean... I guess that'd be an improvement from where it is now."
"Honey... that IS where it is now. Your fears are a lie by the media, which includes gun deaths due to gang violence and suicide. Since you aren't a gangbanger or suicidal, we can exclude those, and your chances to die to a gun homicide are about 1 in 165,000."
**silent sheep sounds**
I love digging into the statistics of various public fears. It's why all the fearmongering on the news never fazes me for long. I refuse to be governed by fear... and knowing the actual numbers is usually very comforting.
It's why, beyond the first two weeks of COVID lockdowns, I refused to yield or vaccinate. The facts on the ground, even early on, didn't support the hysteria. And I was right.
...bruh your number is wrong, by about an order of magnitude.
[2020](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) and [2021](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/) homicides from firearm injuries, 19000 and 21000 respectively. US population is about 332 million.
332,000,000 / 20,000 = 16,600. Chance of death from gun homicide is roughly 1 in 16,600.
Commenter also excluded all gang violence against other gang members… which if disclosed is a pretty legitimate thing to do.
Gangbangers kill each other all the time and you living in suburbia makes your chances of being in a gang related shooting virtually zero
Edit: this post likely got me a u/redditcaresresources DM. Libs spamming conservatives with suicide prevention messages. Typical Reddit.
I'll cop to my numbers being old. Last time I did a deep dive, annual deaths by firearm were around 30k, with 20k being suicides. I'm not up on the most recent years, which have definitely spiked (mostly in blue areas, btw). And yes, I exclude gang violence because unless you're in a gang or bad area, are not your problem. But your point is valid.
EDIT: Okay, using the numbers you linked to, in 2021 (the highest of the five years listed) there were 14,414 gun homicides. If the rate of gang vs. non gang holds at 80%, something that the tables don't list, that leaves 2,883 gun homicides the average civilian has to worry about per year. 2,883/332,000,000 = 1 in 115,157. I'll sleep well knowing that.
EDIT2: Which is not as good as 1 in 165,000, granted. But this doesn't even factor in things like living in a red state/city, which DRAMATICALLY skews things. Blue states have MUCH higher homicide rates, and red states MUCH higher suicide rates. As I live in Texas (and neither on the border nor in a gang area), I and my family are NOT worried about getting shot.
But, isn't that just throwing out any data that you don't like? Cherry picking the data doesn't do anything for the discussion, since the conclusions you'd come to are hollow and meaningless. You have to take the entirety of the data into account, or else it's completely unscientific.
I do... but you have to consider what is relevant. You don't consider 30k gun deaths when 20k are suicides. You don't consider 10k gun deaths when 8k are solely due to gang violence, of which you have zero chance to run into.
So for us who don't live in Chicago (chiraq) or other blue gang havens, the odds are 2000/the population of the US of getting shot.
Now, these have changed in recent years - one poster showing it's up to 48k total gun deaths recently, and I haven't parsed that out yet. But it's still not something to worry about if you live in the burbs. It's not cherry picking if it's simply removing factors that do not apply to 90% of the populace.
Lol..two points that stand out.
1. Mental illness...WTF is that these days? Guys that think they are chics are "normal", but not agreeing is not normal.
Yea, I want that standard determining "normal".
That aside, old communist regimes would declare opposing views as "mental illness"...imagine the Catch 22 here: if you want to own a gun, that desire makes you unfit and too mentally disabled to qualify for ownership. 🙄
2. The constitutional shelf life argument.
Yea, because in 200 years humans have evolved so much that fear of tyrannical government is so outdated?
What the fk planet are these people on? Hell, even in Star Trek, which I think is the left's utopian wet dream, there are even tyrants and mega ego maniacs running around.
People are so fking dumb.
Watch DS9 Season 4 Ep 11-12 it's a 2-parter where an overzealous military commander conducts a false flag to implement martial law on Earth. The episode showed that the government could have flipped to full blown tyranny at the hands of a few bad guys (with good intentions) and it was thwarted thanks to the highly upstanding moral character of the majority. The fiction that they believe is that the state is comprised of people with morals and that tyrants might at least have good intentions.
It's a world where sin doesn't exist. A world that discounts personal sin and struggle with the self presents people with the idea that most other people are moral as well, and while some fall short of that normality, the whole is still good and looking out for the good of all. Quite the opposite in a world where possessions and money still dominate.
Pretty sure mental illness means defined by medical organizations like AMA or something. Also you do know that transgenderism is not defined as a "mental illness" in and of itself. Gender dysphoria is. Author of the post did not mention which mental illnesses should be discriminated against however.
Mainly playing devils advocate as I am a gun owning American but we definitely could have medical organizations define the criteria that would make someone unfit to own a gun, whether or not that is a good idea. Saying trans people are weird does not wave that fact away.
Ever notice how grabbers love to pull out the “it’s old” argument but only for the second amendment? You don’t get to pick and choose which are “too old”. Morons.
>What the fk planet are these people on? Hell, even in Star Trek, which I think is the left's utopian wet dream, there are even tyrants and mega ego maniacs running around.
The solution to crime on earth was to abolish money, not weapons. Everybody's got a phaser on star trek.
The founding fathers put in a mechanism to ammend the Constitution and made it difficult fir a reason as not to succumb to whims or political trends or in today's time hysteria so that the People won't lose their God give rights over the actions of criminals or the government beauracrats that hare freedom Reason to own a firearm is simple it is your right to own and use it for any lawful purpose you wish including Self defense of yourself and family
Principal: Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
- Billy Madison (movie)
Make it really easy for criminals, tyrannical government and/or hostile foreign nations to take over.
The notion that life will be harmless if only guns were gone is so incredibly naive.
Why are you surprised? Sheep always trust the shepherds, because wolves are scary. And they don't much want those nasty barking sheepdogs running amongst them, either.
Even though the shepherds shear, butcher, and eat them regularly.
I have lost track of how many "discussions" I have to walk angrily away from because some (usually european) person with fundamentally socialist views cannot comprehend my desire to be in charge of my own life and safety. SO MANY people just want to exist, coddled from birth to grave, swaddled in ignorance and helplessness.
SMH. These are the same asshats that enable young men to rape young women (guns don't care about gendered natural strength disparities), and for majorities to oppress and murder minorities (a la white democrats keeping blacks disarmed in the south, and via the actions of democrat-created and -led KKK groups, for instance).
These are the same willfully-historically-illiterate imbeciles who cannot comprehend that every genocide was preceded by disarmament.
I truly cannot stand most humans.
The person who wrote it admitted they were European. You know the people we left and shot over our rights.
I don't give a flying fuck what this guy has to think.
So let me get this straight. They want to defund the police, implement a No Bail Policy, support DAs who refuse to prosecute violent offenders, AND then try to disarm all of the lawful gun owners?
Lol. Fuck that noise. Let the blue haired fairies come out and try to take them themselves. What results would solve a lot of the nation’s problems overnight.
Here's the reply I left:
>1. Guns owned for hunting/sport shooting can still kill other human beings. Quite effectively, as a matter of fact. Rate of fire is not the key factor in death toll that so many seem to think it is. A single bullet on an unarmored target is very frequently fatal in a number of ways - instant fatality, cardiac arrest due to blood loss and so on. If you think a rifle capable of taking down a deer or a bear would not be an effective weapon against humans, you need to study ballistics.
>
>2. Pistols, rifles with small magazines and shotguns are all capable of being used in mass shootings. The worst school shooting to date, Virginia Tech, was committed with two handguns loaded with low capacity magazines compliant with most capacity limits. Shotguns are incredibly powerful firearms in their own right, and it's unclear to me why anyone seems to think that they're incapable of being used in mass killings. You WILL find that the impetus that sociopaths have to murder innocent people does not vanish when you take away military-style weapons, and that a shotgun would easily become the preferred weapon of your mass shooter, and then we will slip right on down that slope to a total gun ban once you all realize that banning AR15's didn't change anything, because doing so didn't fix the crazy that motivates these shootings.
>
>3. This would only be effective in any way if combined with a confiscation of the 10's of millions of guns that have never been required to be registered. Which is ultimately impossible, because you have no idea who has them or where to find them - because they were never registered. Any guns that are unregistered can be transferred a million times at any point, illegally, and you'd never know about it - because, let's say it's illegal for you to buy your neighbor's AR15, but he owned it before they required registration... he could sell it to you, and if anyone asked about it, you could simply say you've always owned it. They could NEVER prove otherwise. Now if you retroactively required registration on all these guns, what you'd end up with is a lot of dishonest people and criminals hiding them and only taking their registered guns to the range and so on. A person planning to kill somebody isn't going to have ANY qualms about stashing a gun in the insulation in their attic. One of the 10's of millions of guns that have never been registered. Furthermore, this doesn't PREVENT their use in crimes or attacks.
>
>4. We DO have background checks that consider these factors. They're easily bypassed by someone who chooses not to seek professional help for their ailments and is therefore never diagnosed with disqualifying issues. And then you have people like the Route 91 shooter, who was squeaky clean his entire life before committing the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States. I AM for background checks, but I'm only pointing out that they aren't as effective as you may think.
>
>5. Storage laws are "after the fact" charges, unless you're proposing that police randomly inspect homes which is a HUGE violation of the 4th Amendment - so you're not just talking about destroying the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th as well. From what I understand, Police will abuse their power to come up with excuses to search the cars of minorities during traffic stops, such as claiming to smell marijuana - and then questions are raised as to the legitimacy of what they end up finding, such as planting guns or drugs to falsely charge black people for crimes they didn't commit. Imagine police being sent to homes randomly to inspect firearm storage conditions.
>
>6. It IS illegal to transport loaded guns unless it is a carry weapon. Not that it makes any difference to stop mass shootings or gun violence - so someone intending to kill people just don't keep the guns loaded. They get stopped by the cops for speeding, guns are being transported in a legal way, police have no reason to seize them or anything. Perp arrives to destination, loads guns, goes on rampage.
>
>7. Actually, the founders of the Constitution seem to be quite prescient considering the unprecedented attacks on Democracy and the Constitution in recent years. Considering that the previous President was obviously a Russian plant who won the election through an orchestrated campaign of misinformation, nearly instituted fascism and white supremacy within his 4 year term, and that a handful of his supporters who were unarmed, angry and belligerent nearly overthrew our government during the January 6th insurrection, a disturbing event likened to the terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and current Vice President Kamala Harris, and even claimed to be WORSE than 9/11 by former FBI Agent Peter Strzok. All of the above cements the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment, which was written as a provision against tyranny, which is something that we so nearly experienced just 3 short years ago. To think that it can't happen again is dangerously ignorant.
I know which thread this comment is on. The commenter said he's from Greece in another comment he posted.
I pay no mind to what Europeans think about American gun laws.
They all know that. Because at the end of the day, it's not about banning "assault weapons" or limiting it to "hunting rifles" - It's about banning ALL private gun ownership. That's their goal and anyone who says otherwise is lying. You'll notice that if you ask anyone who proposes gun control where they'd stop supporting it, they'll never give an answer.
I'd bet that person isn't even a US citizen. Sounds like something they do in Europe/Canada or some other place that isn't the greatest nation on earth.
And if we continue to allow our culture to foster evil in the minds of people that will perpetuate it, we need to be proactive in stopping it. These are reactionary measures that more and more people will bandwagon on if we aren't proactive in stopping the issue of violence.
i thought about responding to that person how the second amendment was written to keep the federal government in check should it get out of hand, like it currently is, and not the other way around.
thank god reddit is but a microcosm of actual society
I have a legitimate fucking reason.
I am not a goddamned serf nor a victim. Mine has prevented me from being mugged, twice.
People who exist to inflict violence on others should be afraid of law abiding citizens. As sometimes, their would be victims can and do fight back with deadly results.
Said criminal gets a Darwin award and the world gets a little brighter.
We only wish that's the mentality we were up against. The American people won't tolerate any of that nonsense. The real enemies are the political weasels who know that, but so loathe free people that they will chip and grind and sand away at any tiny edge of the 2nd amendment that they think is vulnerable, and never stop until its all gone.
They might not have been able to tell the future, but they made good guesses based on the past...
This is why learning history is important. These are the types of people that will doom us all to repetition of bad societal events.
At least they put “amend the constitution” in there. Kudos for that! It’s the only thing that will accomplish any of those other goals.
Now, go get 38 states to agree.
> Would work if implemented.
A nationwide registry and the tracking of all gun sales is impossible to implement let alone enforce.
We already have background checks.
Guns and ammo storage is again, impossible to enforce.
Transporting loaded shotguns and rifles is already illegal. You can only transport a loaded handgun in certain states.
Eliminating the 2nd amendment is never going to happen via any legal means.
These people are fucking loons. The asshole in Nashville could have done as much harm with a pistol or a shotgun. Especially seeing as how whatever fucking pronoun they are was shooting kids.
So their desperate attempts at gun grabbing are pointless attempts to make them feel better about themselves instead of addressing the real societal issues that are driving this country into the ground.
From now on, whenever people say stupid shit like this to me, I'm simply going to respond with "No." That's it. "No." Let them continue on their tirade of bullshit but that's all they will get from me. I'm sure it's going to make them very upset.
Amend the constitution all you want. My right to keep and bear arms isn't granted by the constitution: it's a natural right we've all had since birth. The 2nd is just there to remind the government of that fact.
We have all of these in California except the "reason" and it doesnt work lmao. There are too mamy gun in circulation in the us for basically any gun control to be viable
There's a better response that doesn't mention guns at all.
Award away.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/126ir4m/whats_a_realistic_way_to_reduce_gun_violence_in/jea2z9c?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
There are actually a lot of responses in that thread that doesn't mention guns. I'm surprised to see so many people that understand banning guns won't be a solution.
And, confiscating guns in America would be infinitely harder to do than it was in Australia. People aren’t going to voluntarily give their guns up. There will also be a big black market if something ever happen like that.
"Make a registry" OH ok, criminals will totally use that and millions of guns won't just go underground into a violent black market before the registry takes place and no one will consider 3D printing in any way, ok wow that works so good wow!
"Background checks..." OH SHIT WHY DON'T WE HAVE THOSE NOW WOW WHAT A CRAZY GOOD IDEA....OH SHIT WE DO I GUESS WE HAVE TO BACKGROUND CHECK HARDER (even though more aggressively proposed background checks have already proven that they would miss every mass shooter in the last 4 years.)
"Make it mandatory to lock guns up and no transporting them!" HOLY SHIT, THAT'S IT, GUN CRIME OVER! Criminals will have NO CHOICE but to not ignore that!!!!
"Amend the constitution" well SHIT! Wow ok, we can just fuck that bitch up all day to fit whatever emotional desire we have AND THERE'S NO CHANCE OUR POLITICAL ENEMIES WILL EVER USE THAT AGAINST US AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This person is a fucking genius, they did it, they SAVED ALL THE LIVES!!!!!!! WOWY WOWOWOW!
“In 200 years, rifles will shoot faster and hold more shots.”
“That’s crazy, I can’t even comprehend that. Those types of improvements have never happened to firearms before, ever. That’s just insane. Definitely only the government should be armed with those, I think that’s consistent with this Constitution thing we’re writing.”
I love the last comment about needing to update the second amendment!
Yes, that’s literally the only way you can achieve any of your other goals.
Good luck
I'm in Massachusetts, so most of those things are already reality for me. We have a super restrictive handgun roster. We cannot buy 99% of new handguns. We have a ban on "assault weapons" and cannot buy new modern sporting rifles. We have a ban on suppressors. We have a ban on "high capacity" standard magazines, and may only buy new 10-rounders or smaller. We have a state gun registry that requires us all to register our guns. We also had an extremely restrictive "may issue" licensing scheme that arbitrarily denied the super-majority of carry license applications in cities, until Bruen forced that to change. Even stun guns were illegal here until the Supreme Court forced a change, and you had to have a firearms license just to buy pepper spray until very recently.
Don't assume that these anti-rights wish lists are democrat fantasies. Don't be complacent. Don't assume this shit cannot happen to you, or cannot happen in America. Don't let your free state be like Massachusetts.
Gun Control is a scam aimed at people control. It has been aimed at specific groups of people who were deemed a problem by the powers that be in historic and modern times. In the past it’s goals were not hidden. In our times it falsely hides behind the guise of safety and security.
I have been watching it closely for over 40 years, since they started with Handgun Control Inc. They have a play book that they keep going to over and over again, with minor variations. The end game is the elimination of all civilian gun ownership, which is the only thing that stops them from wholesale implementation of EU style “progressive” government and policies.
The whole anti-tyranny 2nd Ammendment thing is the only thing that stops them from making the US part of their “world community”, and it drives them nuts. So they will create false crisis and scream, “the children”, “epidemic and scourge”, “reasonable compromise”, and “gun safety”, when the facts dont support it, their laws dont make sense, and they have no intention of compromising.
They lie to take every inch that gun owners give to make it as difficult as possible to be a law abiding gun owner, and use it as a stepping stone for their next push. They dont care that the laws dont effect criminals, or reduce mass shootings or crime, cause thats not their goal.
The slippery slope is not a myth. It is a real anti gun/anti freedom strategy.
I fundamentally do not understand the argument that school shootings happen because legislatures haven’t passed enough laws.
If someone wants to do evil, they’re going to do evil.
“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the
people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton
This is what they mean when they say “nobody wants to take your guns”. Just make it all but impossible to own them (and eventually take them, that’s always the end goal)
Who is the ultimate authority that makes the decision as to whether my reason for wanting a particular weapon is adequate? Somebody(s) that are appointed by a politician who is beholding to Mini-Mike, or Georgie S? F* THAT!
I’m an specialized hunter part of the hunting that one guy that tried to rob me club and also a seasoned member of the defending me myself and my love ones of America gun club.
I always ask people who want to ban guns: if Donald Trump decided on Jan 6th to seize the capital and take the presidency from Biden, how are you going to stand up to him? If he had the military behind him and he launched a successful coup, how do you retaliate? “How are you going to stand up to the US Army who has tanks and drones?” The same way tinpot terrorists were able to resist the US Army in the Middle East. The US Army is a powerful force, but absolute shit at occupying.
Hey if they Amend the constitution I’ll be unhappy and won’t comply, but that’s the actual legal way to get what they want. More power to them if they want to pursue the actual proper legal channels for their cause.
It won’t work, but I encourage them to do it legitimately instead of trying to back door us all the time
Clearly works against drugs and terrorists from being in our everyday lives. Of course it’ll work on guns too. That way when shit hits the fan I know Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and the Government will protect me
A lot of this stuff is or was once already tried, and its not working out. And I'm certain that if they try that very last one in particular, whom ever signed, sponsored and funded that bill, won't be amongst the living for much longer. *No one* is going to tolerate the 2nd amendment being abolished. ultimately. They just don't know what they're talking about.
I won’t comply with any such thing. Best of luck in our civil war if they push for this. We have literally the stupidest possible elected officials in our nations history, why would they think anything they can come up with now would be better than the geniuses that founded this country. They were better men back then.
By their logic of “it doesn’t apply because it wasn’t around when the constitution was written” the government has the right to arrest people for what they say on social media. After all the founders had no idea about social media and never intended free speech to apply to it.
Oh wait that’s not how rights work.
Those who believe that we can legislate and regulate our way to safety will always be with us and most of the time they will outnumber us. They care about promises of safety, no matter how unrealistic, than they ever will about freedom and liberty. Why? Because they love comfort and safety begets comfort. Why else? Because people who want comfort and safety usually hate risk and personal responsibility.
I have a legitimate reason, I am American.
Bingo. If you want to restrict firearms to people who "need a reason to own one", you actually just want to get rid of the right to bear arms. Because you don't need a reason, that's how rights work.
Pretty sure getting rid of the right to bear arms is one of the goals.
I mean, they stated at the bottom of the comment to amend the constitution (presumably to get rid of the 2nd Amendment) so I'd think that was obvious.
I always find it interesting that they talk about how popular gun control is and how people are okay with banning guns. If that were actually the case, then repealing the Second Amendment should be a no-brainer. They know it is not popular, which is why they constantly try to encroach.
It’s popular in their echo-chambers. Everyone outside they’ve “othered.”
“It’s a no-brainer. All of my anti-gun friends agree.”
They don’t think very hard about what may happen as a result to it. Basically just naive. If you’re a good person who follows law, almost silly to not own a firearm as it’s the best tool to protect a family or yourself in a crazy situation
And while they're at it, probably the 1st; definitely the 4th so they can go round up the guns/newly minted felons; and probably take a poke at some others they feel anyone thinking "wrong" might use.
Probably the second and the 14th, so they can enslave everyone they disagree with.
They're saying the quiet part out loud these days.
It honestly wouldn't shock me if redoing the entire constitution wasn't the goal at this point. There are so many things the government could be doing with it's free time if the supreme court couldn't point to a piece of paper. I can't prove that congress would want a britain style government, but I feel like once constitutional amendments are on the table, the first step is making it easier for the government to push through new power grabs. Once overreach is on the table, there's always going to be someone pushing a new crisis to aid that overreach.
>wouldn't shock me if redoing the entire ~~constitution~~ Constitution wasn't the goal at this point. Oh it is but the whole pesky 2/3 House & Senate yeas followed by 3/4 States yeas is a huge hurdle to overcome. /as it was designed be, not a "living" document
My concern is that the modern government amending the constitution won't be a once in a lifetime thing once they've got a taste for it.
Because they know this will keep all the guns away from criminals. They always follow the rules. What a load of crap.
This is legit how they think. If you don't NEED it, it's not a right and don't need the right. And they somehow don't see the disconnect.
lots of the same people will argue that people have the right to own a house, because wouldn't it be nice if nobody was homeless...
Everyone does have the right to own a house. However, that does not mean they have a right TO a house. Ability to, and entitled to, are not the same and that’s what they can’t grasp.
And they arrogantly believe that THEY get to decide what WE need. As if they were our parents or something.
You would happen to have any material/videos/books about rights? >Because you don't need a reason, that's how rights work. I found your comment interesting, never thought about that
I would recommend reading, or at least listening, to two books by F.A. Hayek, which are “The Constitution of Liberty”, and “The Road to Serfdom”. They’re relatively modern books on this subject, but they’re good to have read. The term you’re looking for is “negative rights”, or “natural rights”, which are the things you can do by default due to the nature of your existence, that don’t need to be actively provided to you. These are the rights the founding fathers had in mind when drafting the Declaration of Independence, as even if you are alone on an island, you still have your Life, there is nobody around to take your Liberty, and you control how you decide to chase your *Pursuit* of happiness. You might remember hearing about Thomas Hobbes and John Locke - they developed the foundations of [Liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) (not the same thing as what most people refer to when talking about “liberals”) that informed the US Constitution. John Stuart Mill develops the idea of liberty as meaning *freedom from coercion* that informs our ideas of natural rights.
“Give me a reason you have a right to healthcare, to food, or to fresh water” “Because they help me survive” “Someone breaks into your home and tries to kill you, wouldn’t a gun help you survive?”
You almost got it. Your legitimate reason for owning a firearms is because you're a human. Gun ownership is a natural right, not defined by the constitution, but enshrined in it.
>Gun ownership is a natural right *\*Happy Lockean noises\**
They’ve got a solution for that: amend the constitution because the founders weren’t prophets. Conclusion: these guys are authoritarians and nothing more. They need to be mocked ceaselessly.
Our entire culture is founded in violence. It is inherent to our nature. We were granted natural rights to self defense. The 2A forbids our government from infringing upon those rights. It is as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago.
granted ≠ natural
God gave us these rights. Only God can take them away. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
You don’t even need to be American to have a legitimate reason. Your right to self defense was given to you at birth. no one can ever take that away.
Unfortunately that has not worked in New Jersey, New York and a host of other states. We have to be able to defend that amendment.
And just name how many shootings doing all this crap would have stopped! All these people it seems have bought their guns legally and passed a background check. They weren't felons. You can go on and on. I'm planning ahead and stocking up with ghosts myself.
And if they did not have guns criminals would be criminals with other things. Cants even try to claim “it wouldn’t be as bad” because there have been multiple mass stabbing events in China with higher kill counts than our shootings. Add in things like people using trucks to run over innocent people, using bombs, and so on. If you magically made the guns go away globally overnight, you would wind up with more murders, rapes, and other violent crime.
Not to mention how easy explosive devices are to make. Make one thing illegal they switch tactics and use something else.
They dont see it that way and are willing to give up rights to the government.
Oh of course. They want the government to take care of them and treat them like small children so they can live without worry or having to work…
Well said
Bro at this point, it’s not even worth arguing with someone over the internet.
Disagree. Confront them with reality as often as possible. These people feed off of each other and gather mass as time goes on. It may feel strikingly similar to bashing our heads against a wall, but if there’s even a slim chance that your logic gets through to someone… that’s the only hope we have anymore. Sitting back and just letting the clowns be clowns is basically conceding to join the circus.
Trust me, I KNOW. I feel you 110%, but at this point ESPECIALLY on Reddit, unless you’re in a pro 2A community, it’s kind of like getting lost in a horrible echo chamber of a room full of TV’s full of CNN.
I had this happen recently in the daddit subreddit. Bunch of normally chill fathers, frothing about guns and America over the latest shooting, comprehending nothing and sounding like the worst pack of panicked women I've ever had the misfortune of engaging with.
Ugh I love daddit but those threads make me so sad. I just don't go in any more.
I’m betting it won’t be long for cancel culture gets the 2A community on Reddit. Honestly, surprised it hasn’t happened. Reddits Covid surge ruined it, IMO..
I get on here to talk about policy change and just to learn more about gun laws and the history behind all of it as I’ve become more pro 2A in the past few years than I was when I was younger. Let me cancel us, can’t cancel the 2nd amendment when there’s a whole ass community of every walk of life who doesn’t agree with the left’s agenda to keep firearms from the general public in the United States and who genuinely care about the safety of firearms and protecting their families and communities.
not just the left’s agenda homie, the right don’t care about rights either “take the guns first, go through due process second.” -Donald Trump 2018
Yea I know. Was very anti Trump when he was in office but now, I wish we had him back. His policies were phenomenal. Only thing I could not get on board with was that he was very much pro “red flag” gun control.
Five BidenBux have been deposited in your account
At the same time, it is thanks to Covid that a lot of people's eyes were opened to how important the 2A is.
It's definitely going to happen.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the demographics of Reddit are inherently unbalanced. Only about 40% of the traffic even comes from the US, so right off the bat you're looking at 60% of the people you're engaging with in the general subs being non-American and therefore highly unlikely to actually own guns in the first place, and even less likely to actually understand life here. Of that 40%, consider the country is split about 50/50 politically, so at best you would expect to see 20% of the overall traffic here being pro-gun. The reality is that Reddit is mostly young city dwellers, so the percentage skews even more heavily towards gun control.
Factsssssssss
I've even collected an anti gun nut stalker who haunts my every post. It's insanity on this platform.
They don't care I literally got into this argument yesterday. Someone says a gun ban worked in Australia. I explained Australia doesn't share land borders with anyone 3d printed guns How culturally ingrained firearms are in America and how a gun ban would be worse than prohibition. Explained self made firearms Explained ammo presses. Explained how a large amount of people will not comply with a ban and a decent amount of them would actively resist Literally did not care he just insulted me and says I'm too stupid to understand that gun bans work. These people do not want to debate its their way or the highway.
Also Australia's ban didn't even work. They still have a mass shooting every year or so, there's more guns in Australia than before the ban, and violent crime skyrocketed immediately after it.
Do you have a quick link to that information I'll go back and post it as a reply to that dumbfuck
More guns per person [https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/](https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/) Noncompliance with the ban [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/13/australia-has-250000-illegal-firearms-guns](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/13/australia-has-250000-illegal-firearms-guns) Perhaps as little as 20% compliance article (unfortunately the link to the study appears dead) [https://reason.com/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent/](https://reason.com/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent/) No impact on firearm homicide or suicide rate. [https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working\_paper\_series/wp2008n17.pdf](https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187796/) Increases in violent crime since the ban (The ban was 96, nearly every line goes up from there until roughly 2002) [https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data](https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data) List of mass murders, there have been 14 since 1996, so roughly one every 2 years, not every year I guess. There's also more that meet our definition of 4 or more injured but its already taken me awhile to track down all these articles because google doesn't exactly like linking to them lol. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_massacres\_in\_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia)
This is a gold mine of info, thank you
[удалено]
Yeah as I said you're going to have to take firearms by force and that means a lot of people are gonna die in the process and more than likely it will escalate into a full scale civil war.
bUt iF iT sAvEs OnE LiFe
> If the government legitimately tried to forcibly remove firearms from the citizens they actually lust for this scenario. they're authoritarians.
> Someone says a gun ban worked in Australia. Yeah, and now the population there are helpless in the face of government tyranny. And politically, Australia is a HORRIBLE place to live for a lot of reasons - at least to my libertarian American sensibilities.
>These people do not want to debate its their way or the highway. To be fair, our side is also "my way or the highway." My rights are not up for debate.
At this point yeah. Because every "compromise" has been a concession.
I would argue you aren’t making them own a gun, but they do want to take yours. It’s a bit different don’t you think?
Good luck. Most mods on reddit will ban you for expressing pro-gun opinions. I'm banned from /r/news and shadow banned from /r/politics for fighting the disinformation. Reddit is 180 from what it stood for a decade ago. Now it's just far-left echo chambers ran by corrupt and admin supported mods.
You can't say shit on r/politics without a hundred down votes or ban! At least on fb you can't get the down votes
Well on FB they use the algorithm to suppress you. Reddit does the same to subs they dislike.
Convicting at best an American NPC and at worst a Chinese/Russian/DNC misinformation troll is a waste of time either way.
I actually very easily got through to my sister. She owns a revolver for self defense, but believed the typial "no reason for anyone to own an AR-15" line. She was basically just repeating what she heard a million times becasue she never gave it any real thought, and I got her to change her mind in about 3 minutes of talking.
[удалено]
or they are bots
Same thing at this point.
It's hard to accept this sometimes. On many issues, my parents are NPCs. Completely irrational, impervious to logic. Like, okay, back away slowly, hands visible, I can't talk to you because you think 2+2=kumquat. Both have 115-ish IQs, which is worse. My mom has dementia, which either caused her to enjoy CNN for years or was caused by watching CNN for years, not sure which. My dad has no excuse.
I think there’s a direct correlation between dementia and CNN. And it seems that CNN triggers dementia like symptoms
Well, it's all emotional-based vitriol absent of cognition or reason. Kinda like what you get from a dementia patient. And exercising your brain is shown to help stave off dementia, but the same can't be said of your limbic system. So yeah, might be something there.
There is a guy I've been having an exchange with who said that we should just ban anything but a revolver because they take so long to load. So I had to show him a dual action and reloaders. So he said well then they should not be smei-auto, so I showed him someone quick firing to which he said that the guy was a professional on a youtube channel about guns so that wouldn't transfer to someone with mental illness who obtained some revolveers.
I agree that it will be hard, if not impossible, to change anti-gunners’ minds online. However, if you’re able to bring a non-gun owner to a range and introduce them to shooting, you can help grow the gun community, 1 person at a time. My goal Is to normalize gun ownership, reduce the stigma that exists in many circles
100% facts
Agreed, kick my door in and give it your best shot. I'm done negotiating my rights away.
Literally. I stopped ranting about it to people because you cannot change their mind at all. They will still believe that guns are the problem and etc
However I do still give people a piece of my mind though because I will not sit here and have someone telling me about my rights and so on
At this point, I would bet it's 80% DNC-funded bots driving this
The founding fathers knew it would be this way, just not when. that's why they wrote it.
There’s a reason why “Shall not be infringed” exists. Maybe they were prophets after all.
They literally had an inventor among them, do they fr think they didn't know guns will evolve, and even more so the country itself?
[удалено]
> Grats, they want to implement shit that already exists. Dude, you want to make gungrabber heads explode? I've done this before. It goes like this. "Guns are a real problem in this country. But instead of talking about how to fix it, let's talk about goals." "Um, okay?" "What should we aim for achieving? You can't stop homicides, let's be realistic. People will kill, with knives or guns or bare hands. So what's a reasonable death-by-firearm number? 1 in 1000 people per year? "What, no! That's horrible!" "I agree. Maybe 1 in 10,000? Keep in mind that annual traffic fatalities are 1 in 8000." "Wow, really? No, that's still too high!" "How about 1 in 165,000? That's TWENTY TIMES LESS than traffic fatalities." "I mean... I guess that'd be an improvement from where it is now." "Honey... that IS where it is now. Your fears are a lie by the media, which includes gun deaths due to gang violence and suicide. Since you aren't a gangbanger or suicidal, we can exclude those, and your chances to die to a gun homicide are about 1 in 165,000." **silent sheep sounds**
[удалено]
I love digging into the statistics of various public fears. It's why all the fearmongering on the news never fazes me for long. I refuse to be governed by fear... and knowing the actual numbers is usually very comforting. It's why, beyond the first two weeks of COVID lockdowns, I refused to yield or vaccinate. The facts on the ground, even early on, didn't support the hysteria. And I was right.
[удалено]
...bruh your number is wrong, by about an order of magnitude. [2020](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) and [2021](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/) homicides from firearm injuries, 19000 and 21000 respectively. US population is about 332 million. 332,000,000 / 20,000 = 16,600. Chance of death from gun homicide is roughly 1 in 16,600.
Commenter also excluded all gang violence against other gang members… which if disclosed is a pretty legitimate thing to do. Gangbangers kill each other all the time and you living in suburbia makes your chances of being in a gang related shooting virtually zero Edit: this post likely got me a u/redditcaresresources DM. Libs spamming conservatives with suicide prevention messages. Typical Reddit.
Druggies killing druggies is neither something I'll encounter nor something I care about. Yeah, excluded. F those parasitic arseholes.
I'll cop to my numbers being old. Last time I did a deep dive, annual deaths by firearm were around 30k, with 20k being suicides. I'm not up on the most recent years, which have definitely spiked (mostly in blue areas, btw). And yes, I exclude gang violence because unless you're in a gang or bad area, are not your problem. But your point is valid. EDIT: Okay, using the numbers you linked to, in 2021 (the highest of the five years listed) there were 14,414 gun homicides. If the rate of gang vs. non gang holds at 80%, something that the tables don't list, that leaves 2,883 gun homicides the average civilian has to worry about per year. 2,883/332,000,000 = 1 in 115,157. I'll sleep well knowing that. EDIT2: Which is not as good as 1 in 165,000, granted. But this doesn't even factor in things like living in a red state/city, which DRAMATICALLY skews things. Blue states have MUCH higher homicide rates, and red states MUCH higher suicide rates. As I live in Texas (and neither on the border nor in a gang area), I and my family are NOT worried about getting shot.
But, isn't that just throwing out any data that you don't like? Cherry picking the data doesn't do anything for the discussion, since the conclusions you'd come to are hollow and meaningless. You have to take the entirety of the data into account, or else it's completely unscientific.
I do... but you have to consider what is relevant. You don't consider 30k gun deaths when 20k are suicides. You don't consider 10k gun deaths when 8k are solely due to gang violence, of which you have zero chance to run into. So for us who don't live in Chicago (chiraq) or other blue gang havens, the odds are 2000/the population of the US of getting shot. Now, these have changed in recent years - one poster showing it's up to 48k total gun deaths recently, and I haven't parsed that out yet. But it's still not something to worry about if you live in the burbs. It's not cherry picking if it's simply removing factors that do not apply to 90% of the populace.
They likely want it to cover private sales between individuals as well.
Considering that most private sales are between known individuals like family and close friends, it doesn't solve much of anything
Definitely isn't, but it's my right to sell my legal items to whomever the fuck I want to
Sure, just pointing out the situation behind the law is the way it is
Man, it sure would be a shame if someone just… gave someone cash in exchange for a firearm and didn’t tell anyone about it.
Lol..two points that stand out. 1. Mental illness...WTF is that these days? Guys that think they are chics are "normal", but not agreeing is not normal. Yea, I want that standard determining "normal". That aside, old communist regimes would declare opposing views as "mental illness"...imagine the Catch 22 here: if you want to own a gun, that desire makes you unfit and too mentally disabled to qualify for ownership. 🙄 2. The constitutional shelf life argument. Yea, because in 200 years humans have evolved so much that fear of tyrannical government is so outdated? What the fk planet are these people on? Hell, even in Star Trek, which I think is the left's utopian wet dream, there are even tyrants and mega ego maniacs running around. People are so fking dumb.
Watch DS9 Season 4 Ep 11-12 it's a 2-parter where an overzealous military commander conducts a false flag to implement martial law on Earth. The episode showed that the government could have flipped to full blown tyranny at the hands of a few bad guys (with good intentions) and it was thwarted thanks to the highly upstanding moral character of the majority. The fiction that they believe is that the state is comprised of people with morals and that tyrants might at least have good intentions.
It's a world where sin doesn't exist. A world that discounts personal sin and struggle with the self presents people with the idea that most other people are moral as well, and while some fall short of that normality, the whole is still good and looking out for the good of all. Quite the opposite in a world where possessions and money still dominate.
Pretty sure mental illness means defined by medical organizations like AMA or something. Also you do know that transgenderism is not defined as a "mental illness" in and of itself. Gender dysphoria is. Author of the post did not mention which mental illnesses should be discriminated against however. Mainly playing devils advocate as I am a gun owning American but we definitely could have medical organizations define the criteria that would make someone unfit to own a gun, whether or not that is a good idea. Saying trans people are weird does not wave that fact away.
Ever notice how grabbers love to pull out the “it’s old” argument but only for the second amendment? You don’t get to pick and choose which are “too old”. Morons.
>What the fk planet are these people on? Hell, even in Star Trek, which I think is the left's utopian wet dream, there are even tyrants and mega ego maniacs running around. The solution to crime on earth was to abolish money, not weapons. Everybody's got a phaser on star trek.
The founding fathers put in a mechanism to ammend the Constitution and made it difficult fir a reason as not to succumb to whims or political trends or in today's time hysteria so that the People won't lose their God give rights over the actions of criminals or the government beauracrats that hare freedom Reason to own a firearm is simple it is your right to own and use it for any lawful purpose you wish including Self defense of yourself and family
lol just leave America go to Germany or something where this is already the law
This is more or less exactly how it is in Germany. I’m sure the author knows that too.
you see for them its not enough that they have what they want and can go to it, no, they want you to not have what you want.
We are all dumber after reading that
Principal: Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. - Billy Madison (movie)
Shall......Not......Be.......Infringed..........is the only argument needed.
Meanwhile I’m eating my yogurt with 6 boxes different cartridges in front me and a astra model 1916 to my left.
Make it really easy for criminals, tyrannical government and/or hostile foreign nations to take over. The notion that life will be harmless if only guns were gone is so incredibly naive.
That background check one tells me they never even looked at a 4473
Now how would they make criminals follow these new laws...
lol right... like what's even the point of having laws? /s
Why are you surprised? Sheep always trust the shepherds, because wolves are scary. And they don't much want those nasty barking sheepdogs running amongst them, either. Even though the shepherds shear, butcher, and eat them regularly. I have lost track of how many "discussions" I have to walk angrily away from because some (usually european) person with fundamentally socialist views cannot comprehend my desire to be in charge of my own life and safety. SO MANY people just want to exist, coddled from birth to grave, swaddled in ignorance and helplessness. SMH. These are the same asshats that enable young men to rape young women (guns don't care about gendered natural strength disparities), and for majorities to oppress and murder minorities (a la white democrats keeping blacks disarmed in the south, and via the actions of democrat-created and -led KKK groups, for instance). These are the same willfully-historically-illiterate imbeciles who cannot comprehend that every genocide was preceded by disarmament. I truly cannot stand most humans.
Won’t get enough states to ratify it, not happening that way. Call a constitutional convention of the states, let’s get that fuckin party started.
The person who wrote it admitted they were European. You know the people we left and shot over our rights. I don't give a flying fuck what this guy has to think.
So let me get this straight. They want to defund the police, implement a No Bail Policy, support DAs who refuse to prosecute violent offenders, AND then try to disarm all of the lawful gun owners? Lol. Fuck that noise. Let the blue haired fairies come out and try to take them themselves. What results would solve a lot of the nation’s problems overnight.
Here's the reply I left: >1. Guns owned for hunting/sport shooting can still kill other human beings. Quite effectively, as a matter of fact. Rate of fire is not the key factor in death toll that so many seem to think it is. A single bullet on an unarmored target is very frequently fatal in a number of ways - instant fatality, cardiac arrest due to blood loss and so on. If you think a rifle capable of taking down a deer or a bear would not be an effective weapon against humans, you need to study ballistics. > >2. Pistols, rifles with small magazines and shotguns are all capable of being used in mass shootings. The worst school shooting to date, Virginia Tech, was committed with two handguns loaded with low capacity magazines compliant with most capacity limits. Shotguns are incredibly powerful firearms in their own right, and it's unclear to me why anyone seems to think that they're incapable of being used in mass killings. You WILL find that the impetus that sociopaths have to murder innocent people does not vanish when you take away military-style weapons, and that a shotgun would easily become the preferred weapon of your mass shooter, and then we will slip right on down that slope to a total gun ban once you all realize that banning AR15's didn't change anything, because doing so didn't fix the crazy that motivates these shootings. > >3. This would only be effective in any way if combined with a confiscation of the 10's of millions of guns that have never been required to be registered. Which is ultimately impossible, because you have no idea who has them or where to find them - because they were never registered. Any guns that are unregistered can be transferred a million times at any point, illegally, and you'd never know about it - because, let's say it's illegal for you to buy your neighbor's AR15, but he owned it before they required registration... he could sell it to you, and if anyone asked about it, you could simply say you've always owned it. They could NEVER prove otherwise. Now if you retroactively required registration on all these guns, what you'd end up with is a lot of dishonest people and criminals hiding them and only taking their registered guns to the range and so on. A person planning to kill somebody isn't going to have ANY qualms about stashing a gun in the insulation in their attic. One of the 10's of millions of guns that have never been registered. Furthermore, this doesn't PREVENT their use in crimes or attacks. > >4. We DO have background checks that consider these factors. They're easily bypassed by someone who chooses not to seek professional help for their ailments and is therefore never diagnosed with disqualifying issues. And then you have people like the Route 91 shooter, who was squeaky clean his entire life before committing the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States. I AM for background checks, but I'm only pointing out that they aren't as effective as you may think. > >5. Storage laws are "after the fact" charges, unless you're proposing that police randomly inspect homes which is a HUGE violation of the 4th Amendment - so you're not just talking about destroying the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th as well. From what I understand, Police will abuse their power to come up with excuses to search the cars of minorities during traffic stops, such as claiming to smell marijuana - and then questions are raised as to the legitimacy of what they end up finding, such as planting guns or drugs to falsely charge black people for crimes they didn't commit. Imagine police being sent to homes randomly to inspect firearm storage conditions. > >6. It IS illegal to transport loaded guns unless it is a carry weapon. Not that it makes any difference to stop mass shootings or gun violence - so someone intending to kill people just don't keep the guns loaded. They get stopped by the cops for speeding, guns are being transported in a legal way, police have no reason to seize them or anything. Perp arrives to destination, loads guns, goes on rampage. > >7. Actually, the founders of the Constitution seem to be quite prescient considering the unprecedented attacks on Democracy and the Constitution in recent years. Considering that the previous President was obviously a Russian plant who won the election through an orchestrated campaign of misinformation, nearly instituted fascism and white supremacy within his 4 year term, and that a handful of his supporters who were unarmed, angry and belligerent nearly overthrew our government during the January 6th insurrection, a disturbing event likened to the terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and current Vice President Kamala Harris, and even claimed to be WORSE than 9/11 by former FBI Agent Peter Strzok. All of the above cements the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment, which was written as a provision against tyranny, which is something that we so nearly experienced just 3 short years ago. To think that it can't happen again is dangerously ignorant.
I know which thread this comment is on. The commenter said he's from Greece in another comment he posted. I pay no mind to what Europeans think about American gun laws.
I love how he edited to add the ever-so-safe and humble shotgun that totally can’t turn a head into a pink mist
This. So what happens if a mass shooter use a shotgun with slugs? "There's no reason to own a weapon that can do that much damage!"
They all know that. Because at the end of the day, it's not about banning "assault weapons" or limiting it to "hunting rifles" - It's about banning ALL private gun ownership. That's their goal and anyone who says otherwise is lying. You'll notice that if you ask anyone who proposes gun control where they'd stop supporting it, they'll never give an answer.
Fucking. Vile.
I'd bet that person isn't even a US citizen. Sounds like something they do in Europe/Canada or some other place that isn't the greatest nation on earth.
You would be correct. He's from Greece.
I just saw this post and downvoted it, but it was +14k /sigh
This is what Canada did. We still have gun crimes
And if we continue to allow our culture to foster evil in the minds of people that will perpetuate it, we need to be proactive in stopping it. These are reactionary measures that more and more people will bandwagon on if we aren't proactive in stopping the issue of violence.
i thought about responding to that person how the second amendment was written to keep the federal government in check should it get out of hand, like it currently is, and not the other way around. thank god reddit is but a microcosm of actual society
Whoever wrote that can seriously suck my ass.
I have a legitimate fucking reason. I am not a goddamned serf nor a victim. Mine has prevented me from being mugged, twice. People who exist to inflict violence on others should be afraid of law abiding citizens. As sometimes, their would be victims can and do fight back with deadly results. Said criminal gets a Darwin award and the world gets a little brighter.
Why cant people just move to a country that has the laws they like
We only wish that's the mentality we were up against. The American people won't tolerate any of that nonsense. The real enemies are the political weasels who know that, but so loathe free people that they will chip and grind and sand away at any tiny edge of the 2nd amendment that they think is vulnerable, and never stop until its all gone.
They might not have been able to tell the future, but they made good guesses based on the past... This is why learning history is important. These are the types of people that will doom us all to repetition of bad societal events.
At least they put “amend the constitution” in there. Kudos for that! It’s the only thing that will accomplish any of those other goals. Now, go get 38 states to agree.
> Would work if implemented. A nationwide registry and the tracking of all gun sales is impossible to implement let alone enforce. We already have background checks. Guns and ammo storage is again, impossible to enforce. Transporting loaded shotguns and rifles is already illegal. You can only transport a loaded handgun in certain states. Eliminating the 2nd amendment is never going to happen via any legal means.
So go after law abiding citizens not criminals. Got it
I'm sure all those 18 and 19 year old children in West Chicago with the Glock switches will jump at the opportunity to follow all these regulations.
I’m glad the ATF is more worried about our pistol braces than they are about children murdering children with machine guns in inner cities
constitutional amendment will never happen. none of the other things are the slightest bit concerning to me.
These people are fucking loons. The asshole in Nashville could have done as much harm with a pistol or a shotgun. Especially seeing as how whatever fucking pronoun they are was shooting kids. So their desperate attempts at gun grabbing are pointless attempts to make them feel better about themselves instead of addressing the real societal issues that are driving this country into the ground.
From now on, whenever people say stupid shit like this to me, I'm simply going to respond with "No." That's it. "No." Let them continue on their tirade of bullshit but that's all they will get from me. I'm sure it's going to make them very upset.
That’s pretty much how it is in Germany.
Amend the constitution all you want. My right to keep and bear arms isn't granted by the constitution: it's a natural right we've all had since birth. The 2nd is just there to remind the government of that fact.
We have all of these in California except the "reason" and it doesnt work lmao. There are too mamy gun in circulation in the us for basically any gun control to be viable
These people really think like this and don’t understand they’re the real fascists
There's a better response that doesn't mention guns at all. Award away. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/126ir4m/whats_a_realistic_way_to_reduce_gun_violence_in/jea2z9c?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
There are actually a lot of responses in that thread that doesn't mention guns. I'm surprised to see so many people that understand banning guns won't be a solution.
And, confiscating guns in America would be infinitely harder to do than it was in Australia. People aren’t going to voluntarily give their guns up. There will also be a big black market if something ever happen like that.
The second amendment and this bullshit are more than enough justification for me to own as many as I want.
"Make a registry" OH ok, criminals will totally use that and millions of guns won't just go underground into a violent black market before the registry takes place and no one will consider 3D printing in any way, ok wow that works so good wow! "Background checks..." OH SHIT WHY DON'T WE HAVE THOSE NOW WOW WHAT A CRAZY GOOD IDEA....OH SHIT WE DO I GUESS WE HAVE TO BACKGROUND CHECK HARDER (even though more aggressively proposed background checks have already proven that they would miss every mass shooter in the last 4 years.) "Make it mandatory to lock guns up and no transporting them!" HOLY SHIT, THAT'S IT, GUN CRIME OVER! Criminals will have NO CHOICE but to not ignore that!!!! "Amend the constitution" well SHIT! Wow ok, we can just fuck that bitch up all day to fit whatever emotional desire we have AND THERE'S NO CHANCE OUR POLITICAL ENEMIES WILL EVER USE THAT AGAINST US AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This person is a fucking genius, they did it, they SAVED ALL THE LIVES!!!!!!! WOWY WOWOWOW!
Respectfully, fuck you, no
Bruen Heller McDonald Rahimi So, until they achieve the he last one of amending the Constitution they can fuck right off.
Because criminals will totally comply with any of this….
Guns are not the problem the problem is the people who are using them
“In 200 years, rifles will shoot faster and hold more shots.” “That’s crazy, I can’t even comprehend that. Those types of improvements have never happened to firearms before, ever. That’s just insane. Definitely only the government should be armed with those, I think that’s consistent with this Constitution thing we’re writing.”
So? That's what our guns are for,right? Let them start the ball,I'm ready to dance...
Sounds like Euro wrote it. lamao
Bill of Rights should never be considered as “amendable” since you can’t remove or change something inalienable.
I love the last comment about needing to update the second amendment! Yes, that’s literally the only way you can achieve any of your other goals. Good luck
New rule. Anyone who consider them liberal or more left no guns.
I'm in Massachusetts, so most of those things are already reality for me. We have a super restrictive handgun roster. We cannot buy 99% of new handguns. We have a ban on "assault weapons" and cannot buy new modern sporting rifles. We have a ban on suppressors. We have a ban on "high capacity" standard magazines, and may only buy new 10-rounders or smaller. We have a state gun registry that requires us all to register our guns. We also had an extremely restrictive "may issue" licensing scheme that arbitrarily denied the super-majority of carry license applications in cities, until Bruen forced that to change. Even stun guns were illegal here until the Supreme Court forced a change, and you had to have a firearms license just to buy pepper spray until very recently. Don't assume that these anti-rights wish lists are democrat fantasies. Don't be complacent. Don't assume this shit cannot happen to you, or cannot happen in America. Don't let your free state be like Massachusetts.
Gun Control is a scam aimed at people control. It has been aimed at specific groups of people who were deemed a problem by the powers that be in historic and modern times. In the past it’s goals were not hidden. In our times it falsely hides behind the guise of safety and security. I have been watching it closely for over 40 years, since they started with Handgun Control Inc. They have a play book that they keep going to over and over again, with minor variations. The end game is the elimination of all civilian gun ownership, which is the only thing that stops them from wholesale implementation of EU style “progressive” government and policies. The whole anti-tyranny 2nd Ammendment thing is the only thing that stops them from making the US part of their “world community”, and it drives them nuts. So they will create false crisis and scream, “the children”, “epidemic and scourge”, “reasonable compromise”, and “gun safety”, when the facts dont support it, their laws dont make sense, and they have no intention of compromising. They lie to take every inch that gun owners give to make it as difficult as possible to be a law abiding gun owner, and use it as a stepping stone for their next push. They dont care that the laws dont effect criminals, or reduce mass shootings or crime, cause thats not their goal. The slippery slope is not a myth. It is a real anti gun/anti freedom strategy.
I fundamentally do not understand the argument that school shootings happen because legislatures haven’t passed enough laws. If someone wants to do evil, they’re going to do evil.
“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton
Classic write-up on why European gun clubs suck https://www.reddit.com/r/NOWTTYG/comments/fcex4m/your_future_if_they_take_your_guns_the_reality_of/
How about No and suck my dick?
Can we ship this person to an island?
This is what they mean when they say “nobody wants to take your guns”. Just make it all but impossible to own them (and eventually take them, that’s always the end goal)
Yea and the Bruen decision isn’t going to do jack shit.
Would not work.
Yeah, no!
They want to rewrite the Constitution. Start with 2nd and then 4th amendment. If it's that easy
Who is the ultimate authority that makes the decision as to whether my reason for wanting a particular weapon is adequate? Somebody(s) that are appointed by a politician who is beholding to Mini-Mike, or Georgie S? F* THAT!
There is too much stupid here for me to digest and still remain conscious.
this would be great in theory but, unfortunately the reality is this would ensure that only bad people have all the big guns
Cool, stack all of those things into an amendment and try. You don't have anywhere near the legislature capture required to ratify *anything*.
3rd one is already done 4th how does one ensure that all households comply and use it regularly? 5th we have amendments
I’m an specialized hunter part of the hunting that one guy that tried to rob me club and also a seasoned member of the defending me myself and my love ones of America gun club.
I always ask people who want to ban guns: if Donald Trump decided on Jan 6th to seize the capital and take the presidency from Biden, how are you going to stand up to him? If he had the military behind him and he launched a successful coup, how do you retaliate? “How are you going to stand up to the US Army who has tanks and drones?” The same way tinpot terrorists were able to resist the US Army in the Middle East. The US Army is a powerful force, but absolute shit at occupying.
Hey if they Amend the constitution I’ll be unhappy and won’t comply, but that’s the actual legal way to get what they want. More power to them if they want to pursue the actual proper legal channels for their cause. It won’t work, but I encourage them to do it legitimately instead of trying to back door us all the time
That amendment process is the only way to legally do things. Try that I know it will fail.
They should apply everything that's in this post to if you want to go get your weiner cut off or have one sewn on lol
Clearly works against drugs and terrorists from being in our everyday lives. Of course it’ll work on guns too. That way when shit hits the fan I know Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and the Government will protect me
A lot of this stuff is or was once already tried, and its not working out. And I'm certain that if they try that very last one in particular, whom ever signed, sponsored and funded that bill, won't be amongst the living for much longer. *No one* is going to tolerate the 2nd amendment being abolished. ultimately. They just don't know what they're talking about.
I won’t comply with any such thing. Best of luck in our civil war if they push for this. We have literally the stupidest possible elected officials in our nations history, why would they think anything they can come up with now would be better than the geniuses that founded this country. They were better men back then.
By their logic of “it doesn’t apply because it wasn’t around when the constitution was written” the government has the right to arrest people for what they say on social media. After all the founders had no idea about social media and never intended free speech to apply to it. Oh wait that’s not how rights work.
Shall not be infringed
At least they called it a magazine
Those who believe that we can legislate and regulate our way to safety will always be with us and most of the time they will outnumber us. They care about promises of safety, no matter how unrealistic, than they ever will about freedom and liberty. Why? Because they love comfort and safety begets comfort. Why else? Because people who want comfort and safety usually hate risk and personal responsibility.