To start, such a ban would be unconstitutional. Whatever the practical merits for a ban, to implement one would require amending the Bill of Rights - specifically the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights have traditionally been held sacrosanct. Open that kettle of fish and beware! It is hard to predict what will happen once one amendment has been modified.
Beyond that, in general, I remain an advocate of moderate gun control. Things like gun confiscations, buy backs and the like going too far, but recognizing that no right is absolute but is always weighed against other rights and practical considerations. In that connection the recent spate of violence, which is not unknown before in the nation's history, has not really changed very much. The same balancing act remains.
However, what has modified my views somewhat was the recent violence in places like Seattle, where the state essentially abdicated its most basic and fundamental responsibility, i. e. the protection of life and property. This all in the name of an absurd quasi-Utopianism, a. k. a. "the summer of love."
Thomas Hobbes famously wrote in "Leviathan" that life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish and short." Therefore the state exists to restrain human nature and maintain order, stability and security.
Not surprisingly, when the state walks away - deliberately and consciously - from its most basic obligation, then people have no choice but to fall back upon themselves and thus guns take on a more urgent and elemental need. The public left to the tender mercies of man unrestrained by morals or law and being unable to turn to the state for basic security - a state that is, in the case of democracy, ultimately accountable to the public it is charged with protecting.
Thus at the most basic level, the need for a prudent level of gun control has not changed. Seattle and the like, even in this tumultuous period, being the exception and not the rule. However, that conclusion being contingent on the reliability of the state to enforce the laws, protect the social order and give to security to the individual.
Put more simply, the laws as they currently stand are not unreasonable. However, proposals for guy backs, gun bans and confiscations - all already at variance with the 2nd Amendment anyhow - should be strenuously opposed and rejected.
The state has - in places like Seattle, Minneapolis, NYC, and San Francisco - proven itself inconsistent and unreliable in the execution of its most fundamental duty. No citizen of any nation should be obliged to depend upon such a feckless guardian. Put simply, a gun ban will not compensate for the dereliction of duty to which, of late, government seems prone.
@nightdrot If the government wants to ban them bad enough they can do it. All they need to do is get the right yes men on the Supreme Court.
@Daniela1982 Yes, please do explain how that would work. Appointments to the Court are lifetime appointments. So no Justice can be removed. Further, there must be Senate confirmation of any candidate for the Court. Thus there would have to be a majority in the Senate for such restrictions - there is not.
Further still - as President Eisenhower can attest - just because you appoint someone to the Court does not mean that they turn out to be what you expected. (You may recall, assuming on the basis of ambiguous evidence that you have any familiarity with history, that Eisenhower famously said that his biggest mistake was his appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice. You don't always get what you think you are buying,)
Finally, of course, there is the text of the Constitution itself and the culture of the country that underpins its politics. Bottom line, this is more complicated than you seem to understand.
'IDIOTS' should be made 'illegal'!
When I applied to become a police officer, I was REQUIRED to pass the Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory (MMPI) and a basic polygraph before I could be entrusted to move openly-armed amid the general public and intervene in emotionally-charged situations.
Many jurisdictions have upon their books criminal statutes for irresponsible storage of firearms not immediately upon your person or within your immediate control.
SADLY for POLITICAL ASPIRATION reasons, SELDOM is such abuse criminally-prosecuted even as a misdemeanor involving the Owner's minor's misuse resulting in injury or loss of life.
Such firearms owners are not MATURE enough to POSSESS such deadly devices.
Such ownership is NOT the intention of the 2nd Amendment to defend home & family.
In my own youth, as a Cub Scout our Scout Master provided a life-changing demonstration
involving a melon at less than 20 ft. and a REAL revolver with LIVE ammunition.
The ensuing demonstration was SEARED in our young memories; ... to NEVER assume ANY gun was 'safe' and unloaded UNTIL YOU PERSONALLY opened the action CONFIRMING IT WAS 'EMPTY'. And...
even then, to not transit the weapon's barrel across ANYTHING you did not intend to ABSOLUTELY
destroy! The Scout Master invited us to TRY to restore the melon the weapon's concussive blast had shattered. GAME, SET and MATCH!
Today's ultra-realistic graphic video games leave LITTLE to the imagination and many city-raised self-indulgent youths seek to CONFIRM those game's realism.
Real Life unlike those games has NO 'reset' do-over options.
You cannot UNDO what you have irrevocably taken, ... that was NOT 'your's to take.
As both a combat veteran and L. E. Officer I have had occasion to end human life
at least once "up close and looking his eyes as he died" personal.
I can only sleep peacefully because in EACH instance I'd given my Adversary
the option to stand down, ... to withdraw to a lesser option in the time THEY'D allowed me.
The 'wisdom of Solomon' in 7/10th's of second.
I wept LATER, but did as needs be done.
I WAS going home to MY family; HE forced MY choice~
MANY would-be juvenile inner-city 'gangstah's want 'street creds' here in Fla.
and will uncaringly loose rounds with a nominal effective lethality of more than a mile!
yet when THEY'RE defensively shot 'Black Lives Matter' wail:
"He wub a gud boy who lubs his Momma"
I think NOT. ALL lives matter~
To me, ESPECIALLY MINE and MY family >:(
Another racist person, of course.
If by Racist, you mean NOT excusing a social subculture for acknowledged extensive criminally convicted behaviors and history, a DEMONSTRATED lack of respect of human life REGARDLESS of ethnicity... black, white or plaid. Then, 'yes' I'm racist...
I've knowingly killed several Caucasians and numerous Asian North Viet Namese rather than lose MY life to those who'd found my interdiction an unfortunate hinderance to their lawless enrichment.
And, I'll readily wager I've wept FAR more tears over their lives, than they have over the lives they've self-servingly callously ended. THAT, is the politically 'incorrect' uncomfortable REALITY!
Where I live, it can be an hour for police to show up. If some guy is attacking me, with a knife or his bare fists, even if I manage to call for help... what are the chances I'll be alive by the time police show up?
Guns are essential for self defense, they are the great equalizers. Now maybe I could go with outlawing them if you want to put a cop within 30 seconds of each call.
They are already highly regulated, there is 30,000 plus gun laws in the USA, rather than add new laws, just enforce the existing ones better.
Nobody but me can keep me safe, it is our own job for our own protection the police's job is to cleanup the mess. The SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect anyone.
RIGHT
im not a fan of guns
and i dont think they should be easily available anywhere
BUT
the US
the thing is
what are they gonna do
take everybody's guns? no
if they can regulate guns and their usage
that is WAYYY safer
than making it illegal
Opinion
132Opinion
Nope. They should always be available for purchase by people who have no history of violent crimes. Gun ownership is necessary for self defense. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/pregnant-woman-in-lithia-uses-ar-15-to-shoot-armed-intruder/2043667/?amp
Even if some treasonous far left wing administration tries to ban guns in the future. It will be a new prohibition era where instead of alcohol production and distribution being banned, it’s guns being banned.
And just like in the prohibition era where people found work arounds (speakeasies, moon shining) to acquire alcohol. People will find work arounds (Zip guns, 3D prints, off grid work shops) to acquire guns in a hypothetical anti gun prohibitionist America.
You want guns banned, then move to a left wing country like England or communist China where most guns are banned. Cause as long as we have a constitution, the second amendment shall not be infringed.
People once thought that banning alcohol in America would virtually eliminate alcohol-related problems. People couldn't drink, so no drunken fights or people being too hung over to go to work. How could things not be better?
The reality was quite different. The Mafia got rich supplying alcohol to people, which greatly increased corruption at all levels of government, and enabled the mob to fund other criminal activities, such as gambling, drugs, prostitution, and human trafficking. It also caused an explosion in gang violence, which frequently spilled over onto the general public, with many innocent people being maimed and killed.
Consumption of alcohol actually increased significantly, while general respect for the law fell. This constitutional amendment was a huge failure at every level, and it was repealed in less than a dozen years.
In the US, the most dangerous places to be (Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, NYC) are all places where guns have been banned for decades, while the safest places have the least restrictions.
The US Border Patrol intercepted several TONS of cocaine and over 10,000 pounds of fentanyl (a couple of micrograms can kill you) just over the summer months this year on the southern border, and they acknowledge that most of it is still getting through. Why do you imagine that they wouldn't add guns to the menu if they were banned in the US?
Are you even aware of the fact that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect you, or even show up if you call? If they are busy elsewhere, they can legally ignore your pleas for help. And they often do.
Is that really the world you want to live in? Did you know that in Australia, right now, police are tracking citizens and if they decide you might have been exposed to COVID, they are pulling people out of their homes at gun point and putting them in internment camps for 10-14 days, with no due process. Vax status is irrelevant. Many people test negative and never develop COVID, but they are taken anyway. Disarmed Aussies can only comply. Do you want that?
Good idea then everyone will have a gun. The concept of the gun is like a three-headed Hydra cut off one head another one grows back except that every time you attack the gun lobby you only make it stronger and if you do manage to pass sweeping reform bills on firearms manufacturing and ownership restrictions then you increase the black market for a legal production and sales of these weapons to such a degree that there will be at least 5 to 10 guns for every citizen in this country and guns would be sold illegally in vending machines which cops won't even bother trying to take off the streets anymore because it's a losing battle. It would be like that video game Skud.
""If you want a gun go to the nearest vending machine, but if you want someone dead and you don't have the nerve to do it yourself you need more than guns, you need a Skud to hold them for you""
That's just great now we'll have guns and everything vending machine and the vending machine next to those guns will be robotic disposable assassins to a place those guns in his hands and let him go to work.
OP, thoughts like yours are exactly why the Second Amendment is so precious. Without weapons, citizens would not be able to defend against government tyranny. 2A exists because we were founded by defying a tyrant. Look at Nazi Germany. If Germany back then had an equivalent to 2A there would never have been a WW2 because the citizens being persecuted could have fought back. Look at Europe now. Every nation in Europe bans citizens having weapons. Even those nations that are so called "Democratic" sometimes make laws representing the government and not the people and those citizens can do nothing about it. EVERY government thinks they know what is best for their people. That does not mean they actually do know what is best. Also, comparing gun crimes in America to Europe is not exactly accurate because the US is much larger than any individual country in the EU. The ONLY reason Europe bans weapons is because of the founding of the US and to prevent the government from ever losing control again.
Leave Germany out of it. 3% of the population against the German army wouldn't have made a damn difference. The problem was large proportions of the population believing lies, and the Wehrmacht swearing allegience to the leader, not the consitiution.
Like Trump wants.
The rest of your post is crap, too.
Honestly I understand both sides. On one hand, some of these people have had these guns in their families so it's basically a heirloom and more than likely more valuable to them than anything else. of course with proper gun training and proper used along with proper lock up, i think a lot of mass shootings would be stop. Of course their are people who shouldn't have guns and I think the government should look deeper into these people. On the other hand tho, Guns are dangerous and they are used for only war, for killing. So why should citizens have it? most people would say their isn't a reason. Than theirs these mass shootings along with the fact that they don't ocurr in any other nation. Both sides have a decent argument and both have a valid counter argument to me anyway. As for my personal opinion, anything can be used to kill people, the question is how do we stop these from happening? my response to that question is to go down the rabbit hole ( the mental/emotional state ) of these people and try to understand why they do it so we can better prevent it along with finding it and helping that person recover from such a awful state. I am not sure how getting rid of guns will solve anything simply because a lot of the weapons of war can be easily made and all the things needed to build it are legal in most parts of the world. Of course we can't build tanks but you can build a lot of other awful weapons of war and they if used properly can kill even more people than guns have in a even shorter period of time. So to me regardless of the weapon, the mind is the most dangerous thing a human being can used, so I feel like targeting that would be better.
Look at every country that banned guns there crime rates went up or there own government went out of control. lool at the states that have extremely strict gun laws or even cities, there crime rates are through the roof. we dont need more gun laws we need to enforce the ones that we already have. it been proven that if you allow your citizens to arm and protect thereselves the crime goes down not up. all this information is through the FBI. the people that saw lets ban them etc have never handled them have no education on them etc. the news reporter that said when you fired the so called weapon of war the assault rifle "ar15" 1st off is a lying fool and said he suffered from temp. PTSD from the violent explosion and temp. hearing closed etc is a far left antigun nut job. let see the black Texas politician that told the media that she picked up a ar15 and weighted as much as 10 fully loaded moving boxs and fires a 50cal bullet is also a lying fool. if you want to ban firearms and the 2nd amendment then tou gotta ban knives bats cars truck bars alcohol bottles etc bc anything and everything is a weapon and while your at it then lets ban your freedom of speech oh by the way is used incorrectly by so many people and while your at it ban every other amendment and every right that you have bc the government will not stop at the 2nd amendment.
Actually you take away the top 5 crime ridden cities in the US we are ranked 47th in the world. all the stats are from the FBI. THEhe countries that have lower crime rates in general the laws are more strict acrossed the board. oh by the way states and cities that high crime rates are Democratic controlled Detroit nyc LA new Orleans Philly cleveland Cincinnati Seattle Chicago cali mich ny. as much as people think liberal laws or ideas work they dont
Anyone who thinks guns should be banned has never been put in a position to have to protect or look after the safety of anyone in their entire lives. So of course they would choose the option that doesn't apply to them whatsoever.
It'd be like asking me if I think crop tops should be banned, even though I'm not a woman or wear such clothing. Actually, it's worse, cause the assholes not only have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but want to restrict others from using them as well. So it'd be like me asking crop tops to be banned despite them not being banned not affecting my life whatsoever.
But you know. People are gonna people.
Yes in my opinion they should be banned, but that's somebody speaking that's not from the US. My big reason why they should be banned or at least a lot more strict about it is because in my country shootings are pretty rare. It's not like in the US were every day you have shootings. The numbers don't lie. If you are more strict about guns less shootings will happen. Of course there will always be criminals using guns but I'm talking more about school shooting and attacks out of hate. These type of shootings are pretty rare in Europe.
Instead of making fun of ME you could come with some arguments about why you think my opinion sucks...
@Idontwantausername1 There's no reason to have arguments with a boot licking Drone. And If I did, all I would have to do is merely point to Mexico. Virtually banned Guns, has the highest Gun fatalities. You're a slave to the state and that's all you will ever amount to.
"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" That was my last reply...
USA is kinda like that friend who has an addiction and need intervention because their addiction is taking over their life. So yeah, it would help if you could ban guns but its not like they would go quietly. It would be a long and painful struggle to curb USA's gun addiction.
If all the guns are banned in the US... what would happen to:
☑ the 2A nuts. They will squawk about how their rights are violated
☑ the Trump Supporters who love their 2A
☑ the Rittenhouses of the world
☑ the George Zimmerman's of the World
☑ The poor redneck white dude who catches a black man in his daughters bed
☑ The poor redneck white dude who catches a black man in bed with his wife
to the person who disagrees.. How did your 1/6 stunt go asshole? #FDT
No, but I also acknowledge that they don't seem to have done any good at all. The only way a ban could ever possibly improve things is if even the most diehard gun clutcher (always hiding in a bunker when the mass shooters show up in malls or grade schools - if not turning out to be the mass shooter) is personally affected by the negative effects. But the only conditions under which that could happen in a widespread sense involve some sort of collapse of society, at which point there would be no mechanism for collecting the existing guns. And anyway, if civilization does fall in the US, and the rule of law with it, there are just way too many people who have been lied to about other people and have been murederously enraged for decades. Personally, I'd take the opportunity to go right for the liars: make sure they don't escape the consequences of the effects the greedy and detached lies they told had on real people.
I'm not an American so it's hard for me to be able to judge this.
Personally I think that firearms should be banned or subject to strict conditions like in Japan for example. Besides, I don't think that owning a gun really protects you from aggression or from a crazy person.
However again this is not a judgment on the Americans, it s just my personal opinion on this.
The second amendment , and the utterly ludicrous actions of the gun lobby are the issue , just how many people have to be needlessly killed? And yet we will discuss this same issue over and over and over again , until the next major shooting , when more guns will be sold.
On any measure of even remote logic , guns need to be removed , but of course they won't be , crazy lunacy.
If the second amendment is an issue for you then i suggest you move to an country lol
Another*
@molonski2 More people die each year from smoking - over 400,000 - and alcohol than all the shooting victims in the last 20 years. So what should be banned the most?
Thanks for your insightful input. Yes I would agree that smoking and alcohol abuse should also be regulated far more , excellent suggestion.
Just a tip to those addressing topics , what I personally do or dont do is not the issue , address the topic , personal abuse or suggestions are NOT addressing the topic , the topic is needless death , and endless guns.
@molonski2 Substitute cigarettes for guns. or drugs, or cancer, or alcohol. The point is any of these things kill more people than guns yet no one raises a big ruckus when one of their loved ones dies of lung cancer, or cirrhosis of the liver.
Another ignorant simpleton.
As usual... the mafias, cartels, gangs, criminals, drive by shooter, robbers, rapists, car jackers, home invaders... etc.
All of those who have never gotten a legal gun in their lives and who are responsible for the vast majority of shootings and murders will just keep on ignoring laws and using their black market guns.
You, and your ilk, as usual, are obsessed with John and Jane Doe in the suburbs getting a legal, regulated gun in their home. That is all you are worried about.
Only ignorant people want to ban guns. Criminals will still have them and kill you. the less law abiding people that have guns the more criminals will use them. The cities and states with the strictest gun laws also have the highest gun violence crime.
People are naturally violent too and will kill you with plenty of other things. Women especially should support the second amendment. If there were no guns many men could easily break into houses and rape and murder women any day they felt like it.
Nope.
But I don't see why one should own a rifle, let alone an armory that can arm a small militia for "self defense".
But hey, they like their guns and get irritated when anyone suggests to "limit" the ownership.
Yes, 2nd amendment exists, it was also created (1791) before the era of modern guns. And while we are on that argument, the word "amendment " also exist, and the current
amendment can be changed again. But no one will do that w/o risking losing the election/public support.
So, go freedom?
Well, if you start taking away constitutional rights, where does that stop? Clearly the 4th amendment has to go as well so the police can go door to door to search for guns, otherwise a ban on guns would be useless because the US doesn't keep a firearm registry.
And then that's where things get problematic for the idea of not having a civil war.
I am with the majority and agree that guns should (and will always) be legal. We do need some serious work nationwide to correct the flaws in the current system that allows guns to be bought and sold so easily.
Secondly should have a federal law which if you use a gun or knife to commit ANY crime you get automatic death sentence carried out immediately after being found guilty on actual evidence not circumstantial evidence.
Thats way too extreme imho
@vald9inches Might be extreme, but it would be effective and it would be ridding the country on nothing but useless scum that shouldn't be using up our air supply anyway.
No I carry now. I’ve been sexually assaulted then years later the same guy tried breaking into my car which means he was following me to remember… I didn’t know the protective order had expired. So next time I will be using self defense if it ever comes to that.
Good for you, girl!!!
No, I voted B because there are too many people who live in remote areas and would not be able defends themselves and law enforcement could take too long to arive and other people who live in areas with high crime, having a gun could be a means of survival.
You don't just "discard" an amendment to the Constitution, especially one of the Bill of the Rights. The Constitution would have to be amended.
And firearms ownership is needed, especially in rural areas where there are dangerous animals and the police are far away. Criminals would have open season on law-abiding citizens if they know they aren't armed.
Apparently in Europe "firearm ownership" isn't needed and they're fine, so why is it needed here?
Didn't a teacher just have his head removed in the middle of the day in the street in London because he hurt someone's feelings? Too bad he couldn't defend himself.
@TrueConfection: Excellent point
Hell no. I think guns are too regulated as it is. If anything, the current laws should be amended to make them less restricted and regulated so they’re more accessible to law abiding citizens. I also think there should be a price cap on ammunition, but that’s a while other conversation. Some of the laws and current restrictions are seriously stupid and don’t help anyone.
People might complain about whether they would be able to defend themselves if firearms were taken away such as in Japan or China but here in America, however there is one big aspect that needs to be taken into consideration, look at the numerous ways that people can defend themselves in those countries all because of one little phrase or series of actions. That phrase or series of actions is known as a martial arts way of life that not all of it has to be for good outcomes. Heck, someone that is cleaning a countertop can defend themselves by pouring ammonia in a bucket of 409 infused water and throw it on an attacker that is intending harm to end a confrontation. Me, I can defend myself with chopsticks and spoons.
Just enforce the hundreds of laws on the books now instead of adding more clutter that everything gets lost in backround checks have been around for years but it sits on someones desk for years because of the lack of man power. The biggest problem is with THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA no bail before the cop finishes the paper work the bad guy is on the street again here in N. Y. C. the bad guys have been arrested up to four thime in one night for armed robbery but the turn them loose judges turn the poor things out on a no bail. Thank you Democrats Mayor Dumblasio And Killer Cuomo Guv,
You know why people usually shoot people? Because they know most people don't carry guns anymore and they don't have to worry about them shooting back. They don't fear their victims. Handguns are illegal inside the city limits of Chicago but they have the highest murder rate in the US. If you outlaw guns then only the criminals have guns, smart guy. Then the criminals fuck over all the law abiding citizens like in Mexico. If somebody is shooting at you, are you just going to stand there and get killed or do you want to shoot back so nobody else dies? Or do you want to live in a police state where there are government troops on every corner with assault rifles ruling your life? You need guns. You can't stop a killer with wishful thinking.
Anyone still pushing for gun control is just advertising that they live sheltered privileged lives. The world is a dangerous place and trying to use an overreaching and corrupt government to forcibly disarm your fellow citizens to be victimized is absolutely evil.
No because regardless the criminals will still be able to get their hands on them and the innocent citizens will be even more screwed than we already are… the cops are obviously no help in that area.. they continue to shoot and kill innocent bystanders and citizens.
The government took away guns from the citizens of Australia, then became tyrannical. The people have nothing left to defend themselves against government tyranny, oppression, and injustice. There’s your answer.
On the lighter side, consider this. Want to prevent drunk drivers from killing sober drivers? Take away driver’s licenses from sober drivers. Gun control is the same thing.
Or just look what the prohibition started… organized crime.
Yeah people don’t realize that once the government knows the people are defenseless and not armed. They’ll walk all over the people
Are you vaccinated?
@Danny_dan92 No.
@Xtcy2083 You obviously don’t live in Sydney or Brisbane or Melbourne or other areas where citizens are literally confined to their homes and police come door-to-door verifying quarantine and arresting defenseless people in the streets. You are correct, this is not happening everywhere in Australia but at least you should be aware of the tyranny that’s taking place in your own country and how the world is watching.
^^^^
There were a few well-publicised incidents of people being harassed or arrested in the streets or in their homes, and you're right, I don't live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, and I know they have an absolutely rotten state government in Victoria at the moment (Dictator Dan), but it's not like we're living in China or North Korea either.
Things are very far from being ideal at the moment, but take a look at what's happening in places that are supposedly democratic, like Austria for example. Over there they now expect EVERYONE to be vaccinated, and you'll get into a lot of trouble if you're not. France isn't much better, so it's not really fair to always point to Australia and say something stupid like, "You see! They got rid of their guns, and that's why they're now living under a tyrannical regime". I mean, that's just utterly retarded.
She just brought up your country because of the topic at hand. The outright banning of all guns.
For example here in the US we still have the right to bear arms, and you don’t see any of the government responses that she mentioned above, happening anywhere. Even in deep blue states like California (which I live in, and have been dealing with some of the strictest regulations)
Oh, yes, absolutely.
(And spare me argumentum-ad-constuh'tushun because I've dismantled that plenty of times. Laws stand or fall on their own. Only bad laws need to be treated as unquestionable gospel in order to be defended.)
So you mean to tell me you dont believe in tyrannical governments is a possibility at all?
@vald9inches I don't believe holy law documents work as a deterrent, anyways.
Are you high now or something? Lol what are you even talking about holy law documents? You mean religion? And what does have to do with tyrannical governments?
@vald9inches
What the hell do tyrannical governments have to do with what I said?
If you have not noticed this question is about banning guns and you also said in your comment that any argument using the "constuh'tushun" (as you said it, which by the way makes you sound like an idiot that is against personal freedom and belong in some kind of Islamic country oh but wait that would be contradictory to a person such as your self because that very same society that is hell bent against freedom would hang or stone you or push you off a roof top... doesn't make much sense does it?) would be invalid because supposedly you have "dismantled that plenty of times". Sorry if i sounded mean but i take it personal when i see someone that is against personal freedom and would rather give up their liberty so that they can "feel safer"
Your analogy to an islamic hellhole is amusing due to the total lack of self-awareness -
I'm all for personal freedom - Disagreeing with a holy document (Your constuh'tushun or the Quran) isn't being against freedoms, it's believing that the populace should have the right to change their own laws based on what they actually think, as opposed to defending the law because it's the law.
If you think guns should be legal, OK, but all I ask is that you have a good argument for why you hold that position. "It's the law because it's the law because it's the law" is stupid and circular.
The opposite of opposing your constitution is that I am for freedom to control the law - you on the other hand have surrendered your right to an opinion.
My point about Islam was not an analogy it is a fact they will behead and kill homosexuals in various ways because thats what they believe. For you to put the constitution next to the quran is pretty damn cringe worthy bro lol they are total opposite belief systems. One is centered on personal freedom and separation of church and state and the other is a religious cult that believes in limiting personal freedom especially that of women and death to all infidels! Lmfao 😂🤣🤣🤣 how the hell can you confuse the two i have no idea! 😂🤣🤣🤣
@vald9inches
"One is centered on personal freedom and separation of church and state"
OK...
So try suggesting to someone that the constitution should be altered in some way.
Tell me what the response is.
While i do agree that the laws of a country should be flexible enough to change with the times and the people but the core laws and beliefs which were put in place for a good reason should not change unless the country itself no longer exists and is a new entity. And for the good argument that you are asking for again i ask you do you recognize tyrannical governments?
@vald9inches
What the hell do tyrannical governments have to do with this conversation?
You can't just insert 'Tyrannical governments' in a conversation with no context and expect it to mean something.
Are you forgetting chocolate milkshakes?
Ffs just answer my question you ask me for a good argument but when i try to give you one you begin to complain? Seriously? Or is it because you know where your answer will lead to so you cowardly try to stop all conversations before it gets there?
@vald9inches
You haven't asked a question!
"And for the good argument that you are asking for again i ask you do you recognize tyrannical governments?"
@vald9inches
... Yes? Tyrannical governments exist?
Omg was it that hard? Thank you! Lol ok so how would you stop a tyrannical government and dictator from taking over without guns?
I mean thats the whole reason why the forefathers who wrote the constitution made it so that citizens can arm themselves not only to defend their country from foreign invasion but to also defend themselves from tyrannical governments
@vald9inches
... You were just asking if tyrannical governments exist? I ignored that because it didn't seem relevant to anything. Now I actually see where you're going with this. Would it have been hard for you to just make an actual point from the start and not have wasted our time with a rhetorical?
"so how would you stop a tyrannical government and dictator from taking over without guns?"
You don't. With or without guns. A tyrannical government is already in control... because they're the government. That's what governments are.
Setting up facts for a discussion is never a waste of time... 🤦 Although flat out ignoring the question or keep asking why or changing the topic is excellent way to waste everyone's time!
So in your opinion any resistance is futile and we should all just give up on everything and just accept any tyrannical government because its inevitable?
@vald9inches
You didn't set up a fact. You asked me if something we both obviously know exists, exists.
If you continue to waste my time like this I'm done with you.
"So in your opinion any resistance is futile and we should all just give up on everything and just accept any tyrannical government because its inevitable?"
If a tyrannical government gets into power in the first place, yes - you've already had your chance to stop it and failed. Only outside forces can put a stop to that hypothetical government.
If your idea of a resistance is a couple of rednecks with rifles and a few hundred bullets against a first world superpower government that's already in control... Yeah, that resistance is absolutely futile.
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE! I AM NOT A PSYCHIC! Since you want to ban guns i am led to believe that you are not aware of tyrannical governments in history so to be sure and before i can continue with my argument i need to clarify on facts we can agree on! If you continue to excuse me of wasting time and therefore waste both of our time i will be done with you!
If a tyrannical government is in control you can argue about futility but the US has not reached 100% status of a tyrannical government and thats why guns rights are important to prevent tyrannical governments from taking over thats what the whole argument about gun rights are about.
And yes even one man with a gun and a bullet can change history just look at how world war 1 started
@vald9inches
"I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE! I AM NOT A PSYCHIC!"
But you weren't asking what I believe, you were asking a rhetorical that seemed irrelevant to the conservation.
You can either just apologise or you can go away. Those are your two options. One or the other.
How is asking you if you recognize tyrannical governments or not a rhetorical question? It is a question i am legitimately asking for you to answer and you are the one who was playing dumb and not answering the question. It is obvious that you are trolling now GOOD DAY SIR!!
@vald9inches
OK, bye time waster. You knew you had asked a question that was seemingly pointless and that if you'd just clarified exactly where you were going sooner, this whole thing would be a lot further along by now. Not giving you any further chances to try and squirm away from the fact you wanted to play awkward games instead of just leading with a clear point like a sensible person.
If firearms are banned in the United States, then soon after that all other constitutional rights will be eliminated. Then we'll have civil war, IMHO.
I invoke the United States Declaration of Independence: . . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .
Law biding citizens are not only protecting themselves and what's theirs, it's also protecting the sanctity of the US Constitution.
Then you lack brain cells and would be walking you and your whole family straight into a concentration camp because when the government finally disarms the people that is exactly what is gonna happen. Just look at Australia right now. They didn't even ban guns 100% but they banned them to a point and that was enough to throw them in covid camps. The government does not want people to live a long life. They want everyone either sick or dead. You give them the guns what do yu think is gonna happen? Use your brain. Every government that disarmed the people whacked them too.
m Guns are the coolest thing since sliced bread. I think they are even cooler, because when a bad negro breaks into my house I can quickly shoot him with a gun, but I would have to wait for sliced bread to become hard to just knock him over the head with it! :-o
If you outlaw guns in the US, only outlaws will have guns in the US. It's an old cliché but it's 100% true now just as it was in the past. Guns will ALWAYS be readily available to criminals in the US in the same way drugs are readily available to pretty much anyone. That's because the US shares a border with Mexico and it will always be impossible to keep contraband from crossing that border.
The US is not Australia and it's not the UK. Outlawing guns in the US will never work even if we wanted it to. But we shouldn't. The 2nd amendment should be kept intact.
I believe the US Bill of rights cannot be ripped up, but I also believe with some clever manipulation there is a way to amend the rules in such a way to in effect render weapons useless.
Just ban the sale of ammo/ bullets except to gun clubs and licence the sales!
That way the constitution remains intact and every except for people who would do others harm can at least feel safer!
I think that the people who want to ban guns should be the people that have to come and take the guns without using guns. You shouldn't use other people's lives to do what you want. If you want to use guns to take guns away, then you are not actually anti-gun, you just want guns to be limited to people you approve of.
If guns were banned I'd be dead, several years ago I came out of a store into the parking lot and a guy was attacking a woman who I heard yelling for help.
I was parked nearby and yelled HEY and he charged me with a knife, stabbed me and slashed me. I will have a life long scar that will never heal cause of it.
Had I not been carrying I would be dead, as I had to open fire on him to safe my life and hers.
The world needs more people like you.
@LingyRolls Thanks
We need more people to have guns, get rid of licensing & registration, make guns easier to get
WHY SO PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER TO STOP A TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT FROM ENSLAVING US
PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP OR HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
God (or darwin) made men and women, the constitution made them equal before the law, but it took Sam Colt to make them equal in defense.
The notion that a woman or child, raped, beaten, and murdered in an alleyway is somehow morally superior to that same person explaining to the cops how her attacker (s) wound up acquiring an acute rapid onset lead poisoning is highly offensive.
Of course not, overriding your own constitution/amendments that heavy handily would be the worst possible precedent to set.
Just find ways to make the background checks have a higher degree of accuracy and not take unreasonably long and you’ll be well on the way to selling the idea to the more right wing states.
I don’t, but I would be interested in hearing your reasons why.
My reasons are as follows. 1: outright banning firearms just plain wouldn’t work due to proliferation and the cost of enforcement. 2:as an Alaskan, firearms are about as important as a car. Calling the police works fine in anchorage in the summer, but a 12 gauge does a lot for peace of mind.
Guns should be banned and the second amendment, which Madison wrote to assure southern states the fed wouldn't undermine the slave system, should be abolished.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
No they should not be banned.
You cannot blame those law abiding people for the acts of criminals who are taking no notice of the law any way, if you ban firearms those criminals will still gain access to them even if there were no gun shops in the US.
No no. Nothing kills Americans better than other Americans.
It's why cartels and gangs push for more guns to be made available. Drugs and guns - the American dream.
Yes I do as I have lived in countries without them. But it will never happen.
Nope. Then only criminals will be armed, which is a way worse situation. Criminals will not hand over their weapons, and will continue to sell them on the black market. I want to be able to protect myself, my family, and my property if need be. I hope to never have to, but certainly don't want that option taken away from me.
I think crazy people should be illegal so they should take mental health seriously in the US and stop being so cheap covering mental health issues under insurance.
If crazy people were outlawed then the Republican Party would cease to exist
@dmgstarfleet Seriously? I don't see Biteon doing anything about mental health. And it is all the crazies who are killing people with guns. Not only that, but when people report these people to the police of FBI nothing is done until after they kill someone. They drop the ball. The gun laws are as worthless as a Restraining Order as people with restraining orders still kill women.
I'm still learning but it's good to know
Damn its hard for me to focus on the gun
So in your eyes the only people that should have weapons are government officials, police and criminals, correct?
I don't think anyone should have a gun.
This is an unrealistic ideal. Just because you limit it or "get rid of it" doesn't mean it's gone. Doing that will only enable non law abiding citizens and instill fear from the government having complete control.
There is all ready heavy gun regulation in circulation in the most liberal cities and they still can't control it. Control isn't the issue, it is a behavioral issue of individuals who have no regard or care for the law.
Law abiding citizens like myself have weapons as a form of recreational use and self defense. Quite frankly, I sleep better at night knowing that I have a way of fighting back if it came down to it.
The second amendment is there for a very good reason... and outlawing weapons doesn't prevent violence. Look at the UK's fight against knife crime www.gov.uk/.../ban-on-knives-firearms-and-offensive-weapons-comes-into-force as an example.
i use to be against guns but seeing how most times in history when the government pushes this hard for control over their citizens arms it is usually cause they want to subjugate them, i really think guns should be as prevelent as possible just in case ya know
No, I think everyone who has a weapon must register it strictly and must serve the state government or federal government annually as militiamen instead of the police free of charge to maintain the right. Otherwise, one renounces being part of the militia and therefore the right to bear arms.
I think better laws.
Like why do people need assault rifles?
Or an arsenal?
I mean who ya expect to come at ya?
I think they should be more restricted and controlled, but still be available. Especially since guns will always exist in the public no matter what is done. It might be a good idea to monitor them though in some form, figuring out who's using these for fun or for protection instead of violence and hate.
The US gun laws are so ridiculous, they make the US look really dumb in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Yes they should but to an extent. Too many guns in this country and they need regulations. Not everyone should carry a gun.
That's literary the only thing keeping you safe from your politicians.
Nope guns are a equalizer.
We have illegal. immgrants and criminals who have access to these gun.
Criminals don't care about laws.
I rather be caught with it then without it.
It also stop us from being new zeland
No way. People actually voted to keep guns.
Americans really are the most backward West Country in the world in so many ways. They have the best tech companies and scientists, but their general population are so naive compared to the rest of the west
Do you remember when Obama and his Attorney General told gun dealers to sell guns to the Mexican drug dealers. Called Operation Fast and Furious.
Then a border patrol agent was shot by one of those guns!
Who will protect us if guns are banned from American citizens?
What needs to happen is politicians need take a gun course once a month to understand their current gun laws and procedures first hand and be taught the ins and outs of how guns work, that way they can assess what laws need made/amended with well educated decisions/understanding.
Government is protected by guns yet they want citizens to rely on the police to protect them when the police are not legally required to protect you or they would not be defunding them but hiring more. It can take the cops 20 minutes to respond and by that time the person is already dead.
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
