I’ve been for the 2nd Amendment my whole life. Until last night.

So if I want my shotgun sawed shorter than that it is illegal, yes? And the supreme court has upheld that, yes? Just because I want it does not make it legal. I want to walk into a bank vault and take as much money as I want that isn't mine. That too is illegal no matter how much I want it.

So you just made that up?

It would be nice if people in this country, and congress, could have a conversation about what a reasonable amount of regulation is rather than "Obama is going to take all of you guns" or "Republicans have blood on their hands".

 

you don't want to do that with rights. remember laws are to protect rights not take them away.

 

I feel bad this person had to go through this, but they are a moron.

First, we HAVE gun control. One can dislike our methods of gun control, but at least understand the argument before staying dumb statements.

Second, just because you have guns or a license of some sort does not mean that person is suppose to stop a shooting. This kind of logic is quite scary.

It really sounds like this person just blindly supported a position w/out ever understanding it.

 

You can't have a serious discussion with a 2nd amendment nut, they're not interested and they won't become interested no matter the number of murders. They'll give you the standard bologna lines. They're just not interested. Period.

 

Yup, you can't have a serious conversation about stripping people of their civil rights with a "nut" that believes in protecting civil rights. They're just not interested in being stripped of their civil rights no matter what excuses you come up with for it.

 

I’m still for it. Especially with the rise in neo nazi activity. Might have to defend myself one day.

 

I'm for the 2nd amendment but that's different from not supporting background checks and other common sense changes.

 

It's just a made up right.

I don't have the right to kill people. I don't have the right to take dumps on people's lawns.

We're not talking about playing loose with rights that should be clear and fundamental. We're not saying "hey maybe we should make murder legal because maybe it'll be better!?!?"

I don't know why people over complicate this.
- we have a gun problem
- we have a gun massacre problem and a everyday gun violence problem
- most Americans are for tougher gun laws

The end. Try some other **** out. See if it works.

Not complicated.

 

Shouldn't all weapons be legal? If we have the right to bear arms, why are some weapons illegal to own?

 

I'm a Republican (I think...hard to tell anymore).

I'm very keen on preserving our constitutional rights and of original intent. I've read the Federalists. I am acutely aware of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

That being said. I'm absolutely willing to discuss "gun control" measures. There should absolutely be a discussion on what to do about these types of tragedies.

But what I won't do is adopt or even seriously consider measures without knowing the facts of the events.
I won't adopt measures that are useless and simply for political "look what we did" points.
Would Obama's proposed initiatives prevented any of the recent mass murders?
From what I've read, it would have only stopped the VT shooter who had been deemed mentally ill by a judge.
Laughner, Sandy Hook, and James Holmes (the three most memorable of the last 7 or so years) all wouldn't have been stopped by additional background checks. The Orlando shooter passed all legally required background checks, I'm trying to determine if any additional background checks would have flagged him.

So what kind of "additional background checks" would stop these types of events? I think we can get many to agree that domestic abusers, felons, and those mentally ill shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms. However, we have to be very careful when crafting this type of legislation to avoid any potential unintended consequences. For instance, what should be the minimum criteria to be deemed "mentally unfit?" Certain medications? Suicidal thoughts? Dating back how long? Couldn't that stymie mental health stigma progress? This would certainly have to be dealt with in the courts, but how much leeway do you give judges elected by political parties? And if you're too narrow in definition, you risk letting people fall through.

I don't understand the reason for not having a background check on internet sales. Where is the logic there?

Gun shows. How many mass murderers (or murderers in general) have purchased their weapon from a gun show that would have failed a backgorund check? This isn't to say that private sellers at gun shows shouldn't have to background check customers. Just to highlight that this may do very very little to solve the problem. That's the type of :"feel good legislation" I'm referring to. Sure, it likely needs to be done, but it doesn't solve the problem at all.

Gun registries? I cannot support this idea, especially if it is public record. We will NEVER rid ourselves of all the guns in this country, with a predicted 300,000,000. People will still get guns, and they will commit crimes with those weapons with no fear of retaliation. And worse off, they'd know which homes weren't likely to be armed. This will also make it much worse for us should Madison's scenario of a tyrannical government play out sometime in the future.

Automatic weapons manufactured after 86 are illegal in every state, IIRC. However, some states allow older models to be purchased but they have to register. Correct me if I am wrong. Have any mass murders been used by these weapons? Have any mass murders been used by automatic weapons at all? Did the Vegas shooter somehow obtain a military style automatic weapon or did he manipulate a semi automatic rifle using the recoil as a way to basically reload the gun and shoot at a much more rapid pace (though you still have to pull the trigger every time, correct?) So how do we stop people from manipulating weapons for this purpose? Perhaps there is a way to build the guns so that this is not possible? What do we do with the millions of guns that are already capable of being adapted?

Seriously, all of these questions need to be discussed. But I agree, we all need to come to the table and TALK. Both sides can't be afraid of not getting what they want or pissing off their respective constituencies.

It would also be nice if we dropped the whole "you don't give a **** about dead kids" type statements, because it's just stupid, disgusting, and a weak argument.

TL;DR -- Republican willing to DISCUSS gun control. Won't concede to anything absent of evidence that it would actually impact the problem.

 

I am in the same boat as you. Too many idiotic measures are put out that will have almost no effect on gun violence, mass shootings or otherwise. All they do is entrench the gun owners into being more stubborn than ever... which I can't blame them. Assault Weapons Ban is completely ignorant legislation that will accomplish nothing. Anytime someone brings this up I automatically know they have no knowledge on he subject.

We must visit the 2nd amendment and understand what its about. Personally I do believe people have a right to arm themselves, but I also believe there is accountability. I dont think a person should be allowed to arm themselves with dozens of guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo. If a person wants to be an avid gun collector, then there should be further restrictions. Im not completely against requiring people with any sort of semi-automatic weapons to have them registered and the person having a license.

I know I am considered an extremist by gun owners, but the reality is we have way too many guns on the street with little accountability. My views have changed over the years after coming across way too many people who should not have a gun or simply have the lack of training.

 

just ban any firearm. Most countries are doing that and their people are fine and still alive.

 

Yes, there are certain things I believe we can still do regarding gun control. But much of it is senseless knee-jerk suggestions made from people with zero understanding of what they are talking about, banning etc.

I'm fine with banning magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. I don't really think banning AR-15's is something that would be beneficial. There are legal guns that make bigger holes. I think the biggest thing that could be done would be required safety classes before purchasing a firearm. The classes would have to include firing hundreds of rounds with shotguns(50 rounds), pistols (50 rounds with a semi-automatic and 50 rounds with a revolver) Plus some type of rifle (50 - 100 rounds). Being shown how to safely handle weapons and fire them in a safe environment would cut down on accidental shootings, and may instil the kind of respect for a firearm that might deter at least some folks from using them on another human being. I also believe that lawmakers who want to propose (or possibly even vote on) gun legislation undergo the same safety courses and possibly an increase in the amount of rounds they have to fire before proposing the legislation. This would help them at least target the right things when addressing gun issues and not banning things based solely on media coverage.

It won't stop all the mass shootings. But I believe it would greatly reduce deaths from guns.

 

Gimme a ****ing break, friend.

 

I don't know what "it" is, but regulation as reaction is usually a bad idea.

 

I think magazine capacity limits could be passed without a problem, but then the question is where do you draw the line? 10 rounds? 12 rounds? 15 rounds?

Also, do you force people to surrender the high capacity magazines they already own?

 

Magazine capacity and bump stocks could be a starting point for control. It still won't deter crazy people from doing crazy things. Honestly reloading a mag takes seconds, being able to fire 15 vs 30 doesn't make that big of a difference specifically when the perpetrator is holed up and not accessible.

 

This is a position I believe more disenfranchised and law abiding marginalized groups in America should take. Those that are marginalized should legally and with proper gun education own fire arms. The Second Amendment applies to all US citizens. The NRA and conservative white America doesn't have a monopoly on gun ownership or self defense.

 

If there was evidence change x would lead to change y and not have consequences z the whole thing would be an easier discussion.

You're not going to get evidence.

You're making it like instant replay in football. They can't do overturn anything unless it I,000% clear. It's the ruling on the field that matters... never mind the fact that the ruling on the field was made without the benefit of a dozen slow mo replays that should be superior.

For a country founded on the notion the prior set of laws they were living under weren't logical, Americans sure are reluctant to look their own set of laws in the mirror.

What is, in your opinion, the downside of a bunch of stricter regulation that ultimately doesn't work to curtail gun violence?

 

Agreed with that too, "bump stocks" are ridiculous and really go against the spirit of automatic weapons restrictions.