You argue that guns are necessary to protect yourself but then you say that the US is so safe and gun violence is a rare tragedy. So apparently you don’t need that gun after all. Since you are so free of fear and live in such bliss why would you want the risk of having a gun in the house? The risk of a home invasion after all is incredibly rare. The odds your gun is used in a suicide is much higher than used to protect. The reality is your logic is nonexistent. You just want what you want and feel the way you feel and think since you’re such a special snowflake everyone should feel the same. 2A will eventually be overturned. It won’t be when we get so afraid we want to take all the guns away. It will be when we lose our irrational fear of home invasions and realize we don’t need guns. It will not come to pass until those that live with so much fear and thus own so many guns pass on.
Okay? I'm sorry you don't like facts. I literally just posted that most people of every race (which includes black people) are good. Go off though. I have killed exactly zero people. This is nothing but buzzwords. What policies are you for? What policies are you against. Why? All you are saying is white people bad, rich people bad, black people good, poor people good. What rot. Good people are good, regardless of wealth or color. Bad people are bad, regardless of wealth or color. Did I say guns are necessary to protect yourself? I don't own any guns. I am quite safe without them. I don't begrudge other people of their rights. I don't "risk" having a gun in the house. I have never suffered a home invasion and probably never will. My logic is impeccable. I don't think it will, and certainly not while any of us are alive. For the time being, too many people are in favor of freedom. Maybe someday people will be so afraid that they can cross the necessary threshold to pass an amendment that overturns the 2nd Amendment. I would not want to see the state of things that brings such an event about.
Trump, in his speech to the NRA today, listed things that were the problem instead of guns. One mentioned is mental health. That is correct. Yet, they oppose red flag laws and a waiting period to buy a gun. Two prime examples of what could curtail people with mental health issues, be they long term or short term, from using a gun.
If you’re a lawyer then you should understand how laws begrudge people’s rights. I have the freedom of speech but I can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater, etc. There are no fundamental rights not even for Libertarians. All laws have shades of gray and there is a constant struggle between the rights of the individual and the safety of the general populace. A basic tenet of Libertarianism is That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Your freedom can be limited if it means preventing harm to others. Repealing 2A would go along way to preventing harm.
You are misrepresenting libertarianism. The basic tenant you are referring to is the non-aggression principle. It does not stand for the notion that restrictions are okay if they can possibly prevent harm. The non-aggression principle states that you cannot aggress agains someone unless they have previously aggressed against you. Taking someone's property or arresting them would be an aggression. Possessing a gun would not. So you cannot confiscate someone's gun or arrest them simply because they possess it. You can confiscate their gun or arrest them if they brandish it or shoot at you. The bedrock of libertarianism is not the safety of the populace, it is freedom. There is no libertarian principle against owning a nuclear bomb or running a bioweapons lab or juggling hand grenades or driving 120 mph. It is only when your actions cause actual harm to others, or put them in imminent danger of actual harm that actions can be taken to stop you.
This is such a horrible world to live in, and I'm glad you're just a fringe part of it. It's cool to make everyone unsafe until that moment where you actually harm them (or "imminent danger, as you say), then the government can intervene. Give me a ****ing break.
It doesn't have to be the government, you are welcome to use force against those who aggress against you. LOL, I am hardly a sovereign citizen. I literally am in law enforcement.
In my mind, in reality, on the Internet, everywhere. Not enough. The requirements to pass a constitutional amendment are substantial. Two thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of the state legislatures would have to propose an amendment. 3/4 of the state legislatures or 3/4 of the states by referendum would then have to ratify the amendment. That means either 67 senators and 312 members of the house would have to propose an amendment or 34 state legislatures and then 37 states would have to ratify it. Which 37 states do you think want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment?
And I will state again that "Freedom" cannot exist without responsibility. What you're describing is Anarchy. Under the Enlightment philosophical basis of our government individual actions are still subject societal norms. Under Locke who greatly influenced Jefferson, rights cannot exist without a social framework. To use your specific example if I were to own a nuke I might never use it but I could certainly use the fear of such a weapon to intimidate others. In that sense technically I meet your definition of freedom but that really isn't freedom for my neighbors if they feel their actions are constrained because of fear of me. The nature of a government is that it allows an equal protection of rights.
I wasn't talking about politicians. I was speaking about most Americans. I think the majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. I have no idea what percentage of Americans would support a ban on pistols and AR-15 type weapons. I can't imagine the majority of Americans being against annual licensing either, or mandatory safety training. I personally don't find it sick to set out feeders to lure and shoot and kill game, and especially am against trophy hunting. I know lots of Americans love killing animals for fun though. Some actually kill game to survive, and I don't have a problem with that. It can be done without a pistol or rifle meant to shoot clips of ammo repeatedly.
4 people dead, 20 injured in Alabama another one in Louisville with 2 dead, 4 injured after someone opened fire in a park this all in the past 24 hours
Yeah, but only in the form of monetary lawsuits. These libertarians crack me up. They don't believe in any regulations. Companies can pollute as much as they want and once they cause harm they can then be held civilly liable.
