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

If it's a civil right to carry weapons that can kill and injury 600 people, why are bombs illegal? What about chemical weapons? Where does one draw the line?

Guns back when the constitution was created were muskets that took a minute to reload a single shot. Technically, they should allow guns that were around back then, that would be protecting people's civil right to bear arms.

The idiots arguing that taking away people's machine guns and long range semi-automatic military hardware is an assault on people's rights because you are preventing people from murdering a small army of civilians are deranged and we need to stop letting these people give monsters the weapons they need to kill innocent people.

Fact is that the states with less guns have less gun murders. Go figure!!!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

 

Yeah, I don't agree with making non assault weapons into actual assault weapons. There is no practical use for something like that in the real world.

 

Admittedly, I don't own any guns. Don't rob me, please! I've only fired a weapon once, when I was like 13. So my knowledge is limited, and my experience is even further limited. From what I've read, an assault weapon has to have a few key features, among the most significant being a detachable magazine, and capable of "selective fire." Would you consider requiring non-detachable magazines? Or any other type of required manufacturing modifications to stop people from turning these into fully-automatic weapons? Do you think citizens should be able to own a fully automatic weapon? (please don't read in an accusatory or aggressive tone, just typing out the questions as I ponder aloud)

 

I guess I was playing Devil's advocate. People point to the 2nd amendment to justify their right to own their weapon of choice. But, the 2nd amendment isn't very specific about what arms we are allowed to bear. I hear people complain that taking certain weapons away would be violating their 2nd amendment rights. But, we already have limitations.

It seems we could outlaw many of the weapons that are currently legal, and people would still enjoy their 2nd amendment rights.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing about taking away "machine" guns as they are already illegal. These "long range military weapons" you speak of are just dressed up versions of hunting rifles, that are typically smaller caliber than most common hunting rifles. They just look like military weapons but are not intended to function that way.

 

The evidence of these cases, not the evidence of the legislation being successful...though the evidence of the cases would tell us if the legislation would have stopped previous events, giving us a strong predictor of its success.

Some of the downsides are the unintended consequences I jotted down in my original response. There are some measures I think shouldn't be a problem at all. Others need to be crafted carefully to avoid those consequences. Especially when it comes to mental health because we need to ensure due process.

 

I wonder if any of the injured are now considered to have pre-existing condition?

 

Where do I sign?

 

Thinking you need lethal firearms to defend yourself and supporting a 'civil right' that causes such a large magnitude of tragic deaths each year are far more cowardly.

The proof is in the statistics and other countries. I've actually lived in several countries, visited far many more, and America is the only modern country plagued by such gun violence. Such a neanderthal approach to life and living in a bubble.

 

No point in arguing with Bobby, never changes his position and has to resort to childish insults to hide his own lack of content.

I know there are millions of intelligent and educated US citizens like you and many others here, but as someone outside of the USA, it's just embarrassing and hilarious to see how guys like bobby and other nuts think.

They laugh at cultures like Islam and say they're stuck in the 15th century , while screaming "SECOND AMENDMENT", "IT'S MY GOD DAMN RIGHT", "COMMUNISM" or "NOTHING WOULD'VE PREVENTED THIS". This isn't one bit better and everyone outside of the ultra-conservative republican bubble thinks they're utter morons with no idea of how modern society should function.

Then acting holier than thou and insulting everyone else is the icing on the cake, the level of delusion is horrible with these brainwashed people.

 

Machine guns made prior to 1986 are legal in Nevada, you're wrong.

 

Is there one argument against better gun control?

Like, one that isn't "Because that's how it's always been."

One? All the other arguments can be torn down with a few seconds of thinking.

1.) Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun.
Counter: When has that happened? You realize this probably starts some kind of wild shootout? Do you really want someone in the middle of chaos to pull out their gun and shoot at who they THINK may be the shooter?

2.) We need to protect against our government.
This made sense back then...right now...if the government decided to turn on its peoples we will not win that war with guns and weaponry. Have you seen the US military? If you agree with this, then why not let people carry rocket launchers, grenades, etc etc? They would be more effective in defense should the US Military start marching against its own citizens.

Anything else? These are the only arguments other then the whole "Well...that's just how it always has been!" These are the only ones I hear and they just don't hold up to scrutiny for me.

 

Well, in theory a well armed society would also be a threat to any invading party, not just our government. I don't own a gun currently but I have in the past when I use to live in areas where robbery, murder, rape, extortion was a common thing. Can't say it helped me sleep any better at night, though. I sold it once I moved to a safer neighborhood and haven't owned one since.

The main issue I have with the gun problem (and it is indeed a problem), is that there are currently hundreds of millions of guns in circulation right now in the U.S. Many of them are illegal or straw purchase. How do we solve this issue? I can't agree on any legislation that would penalize law abiding citizens by taking away their rights to protect themselves unless we can agree on a way to take guns out of the hands of criminals first.

Ideally, If I had one wish it would be to eliminate all guns, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons from the earth. It's just not reality though.

 

Look at the intention. I think the original intent was to give citizens an opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. And with that, citizens should have access to everything the government has. But we, the people, already said no way to that. Should we scrap that, have truly unrestricted 2nd amendment and now give citizen a fighting chance? Each individual has access to atomic weapon? If no (which of course everyone sane would said no), then this original intent is dead and useless today. So there could be an argument that if it's dead and useless, why even have it? Scrap it completely. That's the danger to sensible and all gun owners if you keep on insisting on unrestricted 2nd amendment rights.

If you think the 2nd amendment wasn't to fight back the federal government as much as for each individual to protect his/herself, then it's reasonable that there are limit placed on the weapons and that we ensure it's for protection, not for attacking. Why do you need an automatic gun to protect yourself or a large mag? Why should mental ill have access to guns when they can't use it for protection and may use it to kill? Why should criminals have legal access (loop holes included) to guns? In many cases, it has already been ruled you don't and so restriction has been placed upon gun rights. That definition of reasonable personal enjoyment and protection should be Congress job to regulate. It's sensible. We already allow limits, so we should fine tune it and make it more reasonable. There is already regulation. If you are in this camp, you can't argue that regulation is not allowed. If you do, go back to the top.

if our government, with it's fire power isn't able to stop an invading party, the people fire power is useless

 

The people of Vietnam say that you're wrong.

 

Not the people, but the Vietcon or North Vietnamese military. Vietcon has a military supported by nations and this was a civil war, not a struggle against an invading party. If American military were able to defeat said a combined North and South Vietnamese military (a true invading party), there wouldn't be a chance the people of Vietnam could stand up against them.

 

Look, it is obvious banning guns won't work. It is obvious more gun controls won't work. It doesn't matter that other countries have enacted gun bans or restrictions and seen mass shootings go down. They are not American. There is clearly something worse about the American people so you can't stop that. We are terrible. We are violent. We deserve our own guns. Praying won't do anything, either, by the way, because we are that evil (and it has obviously already been tried over and over). So just deal with it. If you don't like shootings move away from here and renounce your citizenship. Join a a national culture that doesn't want to mow you down in a hail of gunfire. Americans will laugh at you and call you a coward or a commie or a hippie. We know better.

 

It's not about every individual being able to win a war against the government on his or her own. It's about making those 5 SS/KGB/red guards/ISIS knocking on YOUR door think about the potential cost of siding with the tyrant.

Having said that, I do think people who have shown an aversion for going to war by draft-dodging shouldn't be allowed to own guns (or be president, for that matter...).

 

That haven't happen, but you can easily apply that to just criminals showing up at your door. I think that far under individual right to protection with gun.

 

There is a difference between state law and federal law. I wont get into state laws as ... we have 50 different sets of laws. Federal Law allows you to own nearly any weapon you want provided its registered and you pay a tax stamp and give up a **** tons of person rights. This include fully auto rifles, grenades, bazookas ect ... This has not been a problem because very very few people shell out this kind of money and want to give up their rights ... and these types of weapons are hard to come by legally. I believe the current laws have worked.

Assault weapons are mostly cosmetic. There are no select fire (because that implies its fully automatic which is illegal) and most guns require magazines...even bolt action.

My personal belief is that we dont need to go around automatically banning certain categories. We first need to stop that massive amounts of guns being produced. This can be done by allowing individuals to own a few guns w/out registration and license and ammo. If one wants to register and license, then they should be allowed an extended amount of gun rights. Then if you're really hardcore and want heavy firepower, make them pay the hefty tax stamp and give up rights ... like the current law allows.

Currently there is no enforced which allows an individual to accrue an unlimited size arsenal with no responsibility. Many believe they can leave guns scattered through their house openly and if a kid breaks in and shoots up a school with them, then its not their fault. I disagree with this. Private property or not, an owner should be responsible for keeping their weapons secured.

This is the difference between an "assault weapon" which many leftist want to ban and a standard varmint gun which they feel is acceptable.

There is no functionality difference between the two. One is scary looking. One isnt.