The right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution and is merely a logical extension of the right of the individual to protect himself, his family, and his property. Government itself is just a cooperative extension of this right.
The individual right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution. without it there could have been no American Revolution.
It makes a lot more sense to be afraid of the guy who owns one gun rather than the guy who owns 15, he will know how to use that one gun.Until you can come up with a reasonable definition of "assault rifle" then there is nothing to discuss here, every definition I've heard would ban almost all rifles in existence.Guns are not registered in the United States, a few jurisdictions around the country require it, but the country as a whole does not.It's so interesting that people who favor more gun control always seem to be the least informed on whay gun control we already have.
@gotc147 calm your tits or you’ll be left with nothing but a 18th century style weapon. Be thankful for your freedoms and right to bear arms but don’t get cocky. Here’s your.22, go get it cowboy.
LOL you honestly think I'll be complying with new laws? Get real, I already have my guns and won't be giving them up without a fight.
@gotc147 no, I’m simply explaining that the 2nd amendment doesn’t entitle you to amass anything more than that. Keep your guns but you aren’t entitled to that by the bill of rights. Keep your guns m, no one is coming for them but it isn’t infringing on your rights if you can’t buy more. I don’t want to take your guns. I’m not anti guns. No one is going to take your guns and I’m not offended by your personal position. But new laws saying one man one gun would be fair. One person and three different purpose guns is fair. My friends with 100 guns for fun... okay. But at some point. You aren’t special, if you don’t want others to have that same right because they are crazy and you aren’t. Not you’re place to decide. Every American is a little crazy.
LOL you really are clueless, the 2nd Amendment entitles me to own as many guns as I want provided they're firearms that would be useful in a Militia.You're really bad at this.
@gotc147 Dude, case law and the constitution aren’t things I’m, “really bad at”. I’m not an expert but I did spend many years in school studying the matter and keep up with court ruling. I actually read the dissenting and Majority agreements of many Supreme Court cases and they are long. Clueless I am not, right I may not always be, but I do back up my argument with facts as opposed to weak personal attacks. I know I’ve won once someone resorts to attacking me personally and not my logic. They have nothing left to attack or defend so they go after the messenger rather than support their cause. Best wishes
Sapio99, you do nothing but reveal your ignorance of firearms. You have little clue of what you're talking about as displayed by the frequently erroneous nonsense you spout off, which is rich coming from someone with a handle like "Sapio". Please do all of us a favor and delete your account. We don't need any more ignorance than there already is on this forum.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Ever. It will not happen ever.
@BigJake I can't foresee it ever happening but I don't claim to have a crystal ball for seeing too far into the future. Gun control arguments avoid addressing the real root causes of these mass shootings. The left is bothered by people owning guns because they want the government to have something approaching a totalitarian control and these incidents give them an opportunity to promote that agenda.I have not yet seen one person propose a gun control measure and then offer a retrospective analysis that says something like, "If this measure had been adopted in 1980, here is a list of all the mass shootings which would have been prevented."
The reason I say "ever" is that the threshold for amending the Constitution is extremely high. It would take a lot to get to that point, and there are so many gun owners in the US that I don't see it happening. Americans are naturally leery of government. I think the push to take guns is a blatant effort to gain control, because the government doesn't have it right now. Even if you tally up all the gov't folks in the FBI, CIA, ATF, DIA, NSA who would attempt draconian control, they would amount to maybe 200,000 people. My county has 3,000,000 gun owners. Good luck trying to control the entire nation.What worries me is that the government may not need to take our guns to control us in the future. The advent of smaller and increasingly capable drones may make it so they can control society with millions of remotely controlled vehicles. That idea seemed really far-fetched even just a few years ago, but man, it's starting to look like that will be possible within the next 50 years.
@BigJake Your concern about the changes in society will increase as you get older. At a certain point, you will say, "God, I've had enough of this. Beam me up!" I think it is all part of His plan.
It's already increasing--rapidly! I hate all this garbage that is going on with the deliberate social engineering projects being pushed by the left. They are pushing for all sorts of stuff that makes me sick.
@BigJake Remember that the left has the media to serve as their "amplifier" and the amount of noise you hear from the left is much greater than their actual strength in numbers.
I know. I just can't believe that there are so many people who believe so much of this stuff would be beneficial to society at large. Transgenderism in kids, Gun confiscation, restriction of "hate speech," socialism, and on and on. These things shouldn't even be up for debate. Now there are even people trying to push for acceptance of pedophilia. If you don't believe me, go do a quick Google search and read about this initiative.
Especially with the number of states that allow open carry.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned.
@Guardian45 In 2017, there were 39,773 gun deaths in the US and in the same year, there were an estimated 40,100 motor vehicle deaths in the US. We need to ban cars and trucks before we ban guns. . . right?
So how many lives did responsible gun owners save compared to the number of lives lost when a mass shooting happened?
@CubsterShura About 900% more.
Where's your proof? Also not just any proof it must be from a credible source.
What’s the point of your question? I get the sense that we agree somewhat. If a deranged individual wanted a gun, they can get it from black market resources. It’s merely too easy for them to get it legally.If people were more responsible, if mental health is taken seriously, if individuals who show violent tendencies early (such as the shooter who made a rape and kill list) are not dismissed, I feel that mass shootings will lessen. It can even be helped if responsible gun owners who practice regularly and get tested to ensure they are mentally sound.The way it is now, it’s a mess. People froth at the mouth because of some asinine paranoia when they could help more (quicker response time than police since already on the scene, if they practice regularly, they will be able to take down the gunmen)—responsible owners have benefits. This is all speculation but I see way that can help both sides.
People aren't being responsible with guns. People CAN'T be respon with guns, that's the reality. The public does not deserve to own guns.
@CubsterShura hate to say but you are rightPeople can’t even be responsible with a credit cardAnd she thinks they can be responsible with guns 😂
It’s erroneous to assume that everyone is incapable. Justifications like that have been used to oppress others.
@CubsterShura The government does not deserve the power to deprive law-abiding individuals of their right to self-defense.
@CubsterShura Impossible to know how many are saved since mass shootings rarely happen when the shooter knows the people are or might be armed. They tend to focus on places where guns are banned.
Looks like USA is now getting international travel advisory from countriesBecause its clear they are not handling their gun problem
Damn right brother. I carry my 10mm or.45 in 450smc. They’re soul will feel in the afterlife.
@selfdestruction Better knock down than mine for sure! BUT, if I am defending my life, the evil asshole who has decided to make me a victim will feel 3 rounds into a vital area, I think that will do the trick. But I do like the.45 cal. I've got my eye on a 40 mag lately.
I’m unfamiliar with a.40 magnum. I love my.45. Very versatile. With the smc loads I’m pushing 1250fps with 180gr. Fmj. I like to carry the extreme defender when I carry. I’ve only had to oresent mine once in 10 years. I hope never to do it again
@selfdestruction 180 gr is a BMF bullet. That is enough, you are doing just fine. I've tried to stay out of situations that would require me to pull my gun, I hope I never use it. But there might be a situation where that gun will save my life, or the life of a fellow human being. Stay cool bro!
Oh wow a valid argument. I agree with you here.
I think it's hard to say that nothing has changed at all, and is it not bad to have the opinion of 'Nothing will change so there's no point' isn't it worth trying to cause change?
The black market bas grown exponentially as well as the prison population. Those are the biggest changes. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. There’s nothing wrong with trying to change things, however insanity isn’t going to solve anything.
People know that they're dangerous, they easily have access to information about safe use, so knowledge is not the answer in this case. People don't care and will do so regardless, so restriction is the only right choice. Look at other countries who have done this and you'll see they have far fewer to no incidents of gun violence.
You think people do mass shootings because they aren't educated or don't know that what they are doing isn't responsible?Wrong. They do it because they can. This is we need to snatch guns away from the public.
@CubsterShura @MollyTheOriginal people aren't doing mass shootings because they have easy access to guns. Most mass shooters suffer some type of metal illness. A study that has been on going since the 1960's says that most mass shooters have suffered child hood trauma, although it's not the main common denominator. The biggest similarity all mass shooters have, is that they have suffered some sort of psychotic break after years of build up and are suicidal. So really it doesn't have to do with the fact that they have guns, more so with their mental health. Banning guns won't solve the issue, education and accessibility to mental health is far more important than telling someone that they can't have a gun, because they won't care. I do agree that there are some gun control policies that should be put in place like doing a psych eval, but I don't think gun eradication will solve the problem. People will just find a way to get guns illegally or otherwise.
Of course mental health should be addressed, but they were able to solve the issue in countries like Australia and New Zealand by banning them, so that already shows that it works. I admit the United States is a tougher case because of the disgusting gun culture that exists, but it would certainly help at this point. Dismissing the success of gun bans is just throwing your hands up and giving up. some may still find a way to skirt around, perhaps, but most won't -- at least want to limit the problem.
Mental health issues can't be solved overnight, especially not with THAT many people being mentally sick, while it takes only one gun and one mentally ill person to kill hundreds at once.
you know that the ones with a serious mental health problem are the ones sitting in the top.1% right?
I don't know why this is such a hard topic to understand. criminals will always have access to guns, hell south and central america have a large income derived from making ghost guns and shipping them into the states to be used by cartels and gangs.
You are the smartest 16 year old on this site.
Bad cops killing people unwarranted is extremely rare. If you want to take away guns because of a few rare occasions, be consistent and take away cars because every night drunk drivers abused them and kill people as well.
No who says that, never heard of that... only you say it
@TripleAce You must not read a lot then.
No i doIts only americans that say thatHow come? You must not know anything outside of usa then
@TripleAce I don't care about anything outside the US. We have our problems, you have yours.
And thats why you can't see anything outside of your boxed in ideology Id suggest travelling the world... you'd realize why practically every single first world country is above USA in terms of quality of life...
@TripleAce If you say so.
@TripleAce It is refreshing to actually see another human being on this thread with the same opinion as me
Well there's no possible way of working that out so I'd like to flip the same question back to you?
What we do know is the huge amount of people that have died as a result of guns being openly available
Your just making assumptions as to the amount of people that have been saved
How many times have shooters actually been prevented by citizens rather than police?
Looks like there is an international warning for visitors to usaRofl. People are warning travellers to be careful and cancel their trips to the usa cause they can't get their gun situation under control
Ha! You're stupid. Come tell ME that you don't need a gun in most parts of LA.
Never been to LA and if Its that unsafe I'll never go. Why do decent people even live there if its so dangerous.
Because they live in Santa Monica, Hollywood or Glendale. If you are from the bad parts, you’re immune from it so it’s fine. I grew up in a bad part with my mother (with Mexicans and Latinos) and then I was thrown out and I live with Dad in Glendale. You keep the doors locked and try to bring a gun to save your life. These mass shooters are so stupid
@Arthur_Morgan_1 excuse me for jumping in, but I’ve been to LA quite a few times, and I never felt unsafe, even as a white dude hanging out in Inglewood. The black and Mexican folks I met were fucking awesome, they showed me a lot of love. Do you really feel that unsafe without a gun? Like what are you afraid of? Is it anything a fistfight can’t handle? That’s my main beef with guns, you can’t use that shit to avoid fistfights, that’s soft, whether you’re on the offensive or defensive. Like are you getting robbed everywhere you go? To be fair I don’t live there, but I was in Inglewood just chillin’ with randos I met who might be perceived outwardly as thugs, just smoking weed at like 2 AM on some block off of Century, and they treated me like an old friend. Just one guy’s experience with a handful of people in a city of 4M, but I’m just saying my takeaway after many visits to LA was never anything that made me feel unsafe, no more so than back home in Boston.
@WhiteSteve I was born here. I’ve lived here my entire life. I left the city once when I was 5. For two days. I know my city more than you do.
@Arthur_Morgan_1 Of course you do, hence why I asked the question, and literally couched what I said with that exact concept, that I’m not from there and this was my limited experience. I’m not rhetorically busting your balls, I was looking to hear your personal experience that led to you feeling this way.
They’re also not the ones shooting up schools: that’s people with legal access.
I never said there shouldn't be better gun control, and I honestly think it's more because of improper mental help than acess to guns, guns should have MUCH stricter laws, but not be banned
As I see it it's for defending yourself when someone attacks first, not to play vigilante and go out to "save poeple"
But a large proportion of gun owners are failing to do it and it's becoming a major threat to society.
With this level of stupidity I think Americans deserve what they get every day
Assault rifles are already banned, and there hasn't been a mass shooting done with an Assault rifle.
@Physics-Man That's not exactly true. First of all there hasn't been a federal ban since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. Second, most states do not ban assault weapons. True, there are some who allow them, but even those states allow assault weapons under certain circumstances. Third, plenty of recent mass shootings have been committed with assault rifles. A few examples are the Sandy Hook shooting, the recent shooting in El Paso, and the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting. I could list more, but I think I made my point.
You're wrong on every single point Sir. This shows that you know very little about firearms. I've handed dozens of illegal firearms in thr Army, including actual assault rifles, and have an extensive knowledge of firearms, including their terminology, jargon, and history.First of all, assault weapons and assault rifles are two totally separate terms. Assault rifles actually exist, such as the M16 and the AK-47. Assault weapons DO NOT. It's simply a political term with no clear agreement on what it should actually constitute. Many politicians state that an assault weapon has to be of a certain length, has a detachable magazine, has a barrel shroud, has a collapsible buttstock, and a pistol grip. The assault weapons ban was meant to ban weapons with those kinds of features. Furthermore, those features are far more cosmetic than functional. Their absence doesn't make a weapon any more or less deadly. It's just because they look "scary", which breeds nothing but ignorance. The Ruger Mini 14, for example, has nearly none of those features, and is capable of causing just as much damage as an AR-15. In the military and law enforcement world, there is no such classification in our systems. They simply don't exist. We have Personal Defense Weapons, Submachine guns, Assault rifles, Light and heavy machine guns, bolt-action rifles, handguns, battle rifles, anti-material rifles, and sniper and designated marksman rifles, along with grenade and rocket launchers, and hand thrown explosives. Once again, it's a political term with no clear meaning.
Second, the weapons committed at the Sandy Hook shooting, the recent shooting in El Paso were committed with an AR-15 variant and the WASR-10 respectively. These aren't assault rifles since they're not capable of fully automatic fire or a 3-round burst. That is, they're semi-automatic, meaning that they fire one bullet per trigger pull. True assault rifles, like the M4 Carbine, and the AK-12, are capable of selective fire, such as fully automatic fire in this case. Once again, assault rifles have been banned since 1934 with the passing of the National Firearms Act. There haven't been any shootings committed with a selective fire capable weapon either.It's so amusing how the people who want to ban guns or ban certain kinds of guns, tend to be the most ignorant of them.
@Physics-Man So, let me get this straight. The only reason I'm wrong is because I used the term assault rifle and assault weapon interchangeably? Oook. I'll take it.
In summary, Assault rifles are banned and there hasn't been a shooting committed with an assault rifle.You were wrong here.The assault weapons ban banned assault weapons, which are made up and are strictly political. They are different from assault rifles, which are selective fire weapons.You were wrong here again.So were wrong twice, since you made two main points. Which were in reference to the shootings committed with assault rifles, and how you connected the assault weapons ban with assault rifles.
@Physics-Man. Aye aye aye. The WASR-10 is based off the AKM. An assault rifle. This essentially makes the WASR-10 a civilian assault rifle, even if it doesn't fire or operate in the exact same way as the AKM. The Colt AR-15 is just a civilian version of the M16. Again, this makes it a civilian assault rifle. It doesn't really matter if they're true automatics or semi-automatics (unless you're a pedantic). They're still civilian versions of military assault rifles, thus, once again, making them civilian ASSAULT RIFLES. Now, go be pedantic somewhere else.
Truth.Remember the pressure cooker bombs at the Boston marathon.
To be fair guns make it a lot easier to massacre people. Yeah you can make your own weapons and bombs, but that takes time and sometimes they don’t always work.
That’s true, I agree. I do think that guns should be restricted but I just don’t know if it will change the outcome of number of massacres we have each year (US). I do agree that guns make it easy though.
@WalmartFlipFlop I didn't realize that people who plot massacres care about the amount of time it takes to plan... but even if they wanted to save time; killing is easy. Just run into a horde of people with a truck. You could rig a snow plow up with barbed wire for extra damage. On foot use knives, brass knuckles, and baseball bats. Put gasoline in a bottle and make molotov cocktails. Trap people in burning buildings. Create fake craigslist/dating ads and kill people off individually. Etc...Gun bans just give you the illusion of safety.("surely nothing bad will ever happen this gun-free zone. killers and crazy people obey the rules. #proudlydisarmed")
Well if corse there are other ways to kill people but using a gun can do significantly more than any other method, other than maybe using a large truck during some kind of festival. A mass murderer can’t just go on foot with a knife or bat and kill and wound hundreds of people. They may get like 3-10 before they get taken down. The point of mass murders is so they can inspire fear and get numbers, so killing individually would be pointless for them. And that cocktail method would probably be fine if it weren’t for how heavy they can be and having to light it.Guns are significantly easier for them to use because they are more mobile for people, take down people quicker, and because of the range, no one is going to try and take you down bare handed like you would if you have a knife or a bat.When I said take time, I meant take time to deploy, it’s way easier for someone to just walk into a Walmart with a gun and start going off than for someone to walk into a Walmart wit a pressure cooker bomb. People will see what you are doing planting the bomb and leave.
@WalmartFlipFlop Gun smuggling and illegal gun modifications still exist so if someone were determined they could still commit a mass shooting anyway. Remember the Paris shootings? They don't allow automatic guns yet terrorists went around guns blazing with fully automatic AK-47s.The argument to ban guns is purely emotional and not based on logic or statistics.
@WalmartFlipFlop Here's a better idea. Let's require a psychological screening and ban virgin incels from owning guns.
although even then there's the black market so... dam
Yeah exactly, just like was already mentioned, banning guns will create the illusion of safety... but are we?
ANd im not liberal by the way
Lol what? The right to bear arms is part of your religion? I'm genuinely curious, what religion says that?
@Ethan3141 when the US constitution and Bill of Rights was drafted the idea of Natural Rights was a big part of the thought behind them. www.crf-usa.org/.../natural-rights.html
@Ethan3141 this also goes back to both Nordic and Celtic culture where weapons were a sign of freemen as opposed to slaves. Only slaves were not allowed weapons. So many pagan religions tie the two together.