We need gun control

With an election next year nothing will happen and with this administration along with the Senate I doubt it would anyways.

 

Only 80% of the country agrees with you

 

We will be saying this thirty years later.

 

No we need more guns because Americans are moral ethical people who don't commit crimes and are all mentally stable. If you put loaded guns in everyone's hands just think what would happen:

1. There would be no road rage
2. There would be no burglaries
3. There would be no rape or domestic violence
4. There would be no drugs
5. There would be no murder

No one would screw with anyone else. It works with nukes, why can't we just do the same thing with guns? Then you wouldn't even need cops.

 

I will agree with those who oppose greater gun control that this is a cultural issue. This is about a culture that conflates liberty with the ownership of firearms. This is about a culture that is distrustful of the idea of collective security so that the only solution is everyone for them self in an arms race. This is about a culture that fetishizes firearms. Until we can change these things there will never be substantial change and mass shootings will go on to being a normal part of this country..

 

Glad you brought up the 2nd amendment DD. It gets lost all the time what the purpose of the amendment was AT THE TIME.

The reason it exists is because at the time, we did not have a real federal army, and we were just a collection of colonies. There also was the threat of Britain, Spain, France, and others swooping in to to claim land in the newer colonies stretching out West. The colonies needed the ability to protect itself from invading foreign armies. It was also intended for a national guard or state run military (think state troopers). Not necessarily citizens. It’s just at the time, male citizens all had to prepare for immediately being ready for war as well.

If the founders knew that we’d have the federal army we currently have, they would have never put in this kind of amendment in the constitution.

 

We need more threads about gun control. That will fix everything.

 

Im gonna go out on a limb here and say you're absolutely incorrect. If we are going to make assumptions, I would assume they would be appalled at the control the federal government has today.

 

i wish all these NRA butt-kissers cared as much about the rest of the bill of rights as they do the second amendment. post 9/11 we have seen the 4th amendment absolutely shredded by both R's and D's and not a peep out of most those people. one guy tries to blow up a plane with an underwear bomb and all of a sudden we have to start body scanning everyone in order to fly. one guy tries to blow up a bomb with his shoe and all of a sudden we have to take our shoes off at airports. and not a peep from all these so-called freedom loving constitutionalists. but they are totally ok with the status quo after hundreds and hundreds of mass shooting incidents. and these same people absolutely lose their s*** at any mention of reasonable gun control (that 90% of this country supports). we cant even get congress to authorize a study on gun violence.

meanwhile, starting tomorrow texas is actually loosening its gun laws! arent many of these proposals a violation of local control and private property rights, which conservatives claim they love so much?

⚠️House Bill 1143 says a school district cannot prohibit licensed gun owners, including school employees, from storing a firearm or ammunition in a locked vehicle on a school parking lot -- provided they are not in plain view.

⚠️Senate Bill 535 clarifies the possession of firearms at churches, synagogues or other places of worship. It allows licensed handgun owners to legally carry their weapons in places of worship.

⚠️House Bill 1387 loosens restrictions on how many armed school marshals a school district can appoint.

⚠️House Bill 302 bans homeowners or landlords of rental property from prohibiting residents from lawfully possessing, carrying, transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition on the property.

⚠️House Bill 1177 prohibits residents from being charged with a crime for carrying a handgun while evacuating from a state or local disaster area.

⚠️House Bill 2363 allows some foster homes to store firearms and ammunition in a safe, locked and secure place for personal protection.

 

Yes they would be appalled. They would think the way Congress and the judiciary have given extraordinary power to the executive branch, is exactly what they were afraid of. Which is an increasingly authoritarian government where a president could easily bend the laws to serve himself instead of the country.

States rights were meant to be governed through Congress and the governor. Each state had independence and power to control federal laws and overreach. Unfortunately now they serve their party instead of their state.

However on gun violence it’s an issue that isn’t restricted within state borders. It’s easy for someone from Illinois with stricter gun laws to just drive an hour down the road and get an arsenal legally to then bring back home. The constitution is clear that the government has the ability to restrict the right to arm yourself, and it’s ridiculous to think that this is a law that states can completely self govern.

So yeah.. the framers would be appalled with our current abuses at the federal level. They would also be appalled that we have a sitting president who welcomes help from a hostile foreign power to help win an election, and is openly grifting to line his own pockets at the expense of the American tax payer. More than anything, they would be appalled that Congress is essentially powerless to check him because the right people in the right roles have been bought and sold to do his bidding so they can hold onto power and money.

How they would feel about our gun laws.... they probably would be appalled too that we currently have 80% of Americans agreeing on the need for more federal gun laws, but the Senate Majority leader is bought off by the gun lobby to the point that he won’t even all a debate in Congress on something 80% of Americans agree on. That’s NOT a democracy.

So yeah... appalled they would be.

 

What? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.

The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written because the founders thought the main articles of the US Constitution — that they just signed — failed to address a federal army and navy, how to pay for it, state militias and who is the Commander-and-Chief.

The Bill of Rights were written because some thought the Constitution wasn’t enough to protect individual freedoms — despite one of the goals was to make it generic, as opposed to what the French did with their highly detailed constitution, that quickly went out of date. But one of the clear list of things the main articles of the US Constitution certainly did was address the issue of Wars, Army, Navy, Paying for It, Militias, and Commander-and-Chief.

 

The Constitution did address a military but there wasn't a standing army and much of the new country was very distrustful of the idea of a standing army. From the Federalist Papers the purpose of the Second was very clearly the ability of states to call upon militia to provide for collective self-defense. The militia performed a role that we now assign to national guard.

The idea that the militia was for individual defense against the state wasn't what Hamilton had in mind. In the first paragraph of the Federalist Paper #29 says:
"This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''
Right there explains why the Second is written in the way it is beginning with the statement "A well regulated militia," which did mean a militia under a state sanctioned command and control.

In fact one of the first uses of the militia under the Constitution was when Washington called out militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion which was a citizen organized militia. Clearly the Founders didn't see personal firearm ownership as a check for state power but rather as an asset.

 

We need more gun control like we need another hole in our head.

 

Curious why you don't think citizens need guns?

Do you not feel that citizens should have the ability and right to try & protect themselves from things such as government itself?

Or do you feel government will always have our best interests in mind because we live in a modern society?

But..weren't you and liberal news recently outraged about our government having "concentration camps" at our border?

All I know is if our government is already cool with setting up "concentration camps" I definitely want a firearm to try and protect myself and my family and even my neighbors from one day being put into one.

 

Guns are worth more than life. Gun enthusiast accepted this long ago.

This is the one debate that feels it is hopeless to have for the rest of my life.

 

The problem with common sense gun reform is when it comes to guns, there isn’t common sense.

 

Every 20 years or so, we get a new generation. This current generation growing up with fear of gun shooting them to death just for attending school is a fear they won’t forget. The ways this is heading, you either have some reform that works (much more likely imo) or you end up with new generations that will completely ban guns.

 

Let's start with the question of why automatics and semi-automatics are necessary against home invasion.

I'm sure we're all commandos waiting to be activated, but sometimes these commandos activate prematurely in school grounds or workplaces.

A one-man army, after all, is still a well regulated militia.

Pssst! Don't let dem Antifa thugs hear that! Then it might be an epeedemick instead of a scourge like that opiod/crack thing...

The number of answers to the questions here that are mutually exclusive to gun control

...like non​