Gun rights aren’t about killing people.
A) that’s bullshit
b) they could STFU
iii) they could run blatent lies in support of the short fingered vulgarian.
They chose iii), therefore, they’re a bunch of fucking arseholes. QED.
If my eyes were rolling any harder they’d fall out of my head.
7 Likes
Actually, the 2nd Amendment specifically IS about killing people. You should look it up some time.
5 Likes
I think we sometimes forget just because you can have a thing, doesn’t mean you should.
As a RET Army veteran, I have used countless types of lethal weaponry. I have never owned a gun in my private life and have never seen fit to have a reason why I would. I have been hunting on a handful of occasions and the hunting preserves I have visited had rifles on hand for me to use.
I do not think it is necessary or reasonable to ban all guns, anyone who wants to own a hand gun for home or personal defense, or rifles for hunting should certainly be allowed to do so. HOWEVER…the analogy here is that any person can also own a motorcycle, or boat, or sports car, or however many other vehicles of any make model and type they choose. They must however register and insure those vehicles properly. And the same should be for any gun owners.
There is no logical reason or argument to counter this view. NONE. The only reason I ever hear is that “I have the right and duty to bear arms to defend my nation from tyranny” in other words, the ammosexuals do not want to register their guns because the very government they feel they need guns to protect themselves against will somehow use that registration to enact tyranny.
Let me tell you something…have all the damn guns you want. hand guns, rifles. have as many AR15’s and all the ammo you can store in your basement to your little tiny heart’s content. If MY brothers and sisters in the military were ordered to take over and felt so inclined to follow an unconstitutional order, your guns would mean nothing to the arsenal they have at their employ. One aged A-10 Warthog would level a small town. A couple M1A2 Abrams would decimate you and your small arms. How would your AR15 help when tomahawk missiles are launched from a sea wolf sub off the coast 500 miles out?
Personal gun ownership is not about protecting ourselves from our own government. You don’t need guns for that. You just need to exercise your right to vote, and elect smart people who will serve the people. Elect people who understand and know the Constitution and will work every day to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people.
I don’t care what side of the political fence you fall on…Donald Trump does not now or will ever have any interest in doing that.
edit for typos
19 Likes
Your ESP is phenomenal.
6 Likes
Misogyny on both ends…the best kind!
7 Likes
I totally agree! I hope that Trump’s more unhinged followers also do, given their tendency to yell things like “Hang the bitch!” and “Kill Hillary!” at his rallies.
6 Likes
Why would anybody be “defenseless” due to a lack of primitive 20th century ballistic weapons?
A local gun nut was complaining to me about conspiracies of gun confiscation and I told them that was about as worrysome as taking my old spears away.
1 Like
There are several rational and logical reason to not want registration. Just a couple:
- If the idea of registration is to reduce crime doesn’t hold much water.
1a) First of the vast majority of ~80 million gun owners don’t use them for crime. It would be like me wanting you to register your computer and camera so we can track you if you want to use it for child porn or scamming people or stalking someone because a small percentage of those users use them for the above mentioned reasons.
1b) About 80% of the guns used by criminals are through non-traditional means, and are not “theirs”. So they are not going to be registering them. So you are making laws that target only law abiding people anyway. View of Gaps continue in firearm Surveillance: Evidence from a large U.S. city Bureau of Police
1c) If you think that making people register their guns will make them less like to “loan” them to their cousin, or commit a straw purchase - 1) Those things are already illegal. And 2) The enforcement of gun laws is already pretty lax. Like in CA, which is fairly strict on gun laws, if you steal a gun worth under $950, it is misdemeanor and a fine. (Granted the law change was to help reduce drug felonies, and last I heard they were working on correcting the law to exclude guns.) Prop. 47 jolts landscape of California justice system
There are many cases of slaps on the wrists like this: Burglars blowtorch safe, bag $100K in guns - Austin Daily Herald | Austin Daily Herald
1d) Places with registration, like Canada, hasn’t seen marked decreases in gun crime (though crime in general is down, just like in the US).
- The other big reason to not want registration, is it has lead to confiscation or otherwise removal in other western democratic countries in recent history. Now even if those putting the law into place don’t PLAN to do that, all it takes is a new group of people to put such a plan in place 20 years down the line.
So, while registration wouldn’t be the end of the world, I don’t support it for the above reasons.
That’s a rifle, not a gun.
3 Likes
Well we’ve had an average of zero deaths per year in MA from rifles of any kind over the last five years, so she clearly was not doing this to improve “public safety”.
I always wonder what they would make of me - a far left, bisexual, trans woman who knows how to shoot?
13 Likes
I’ll give your points some thought. Some of them sound pretty reasonable. I think your drawn parallel of computer registration weakens your argument, though. It’s damn hard to kill someone directly using a computer. I’d omit that or draw another parallel to something that can be used pretty easily to kill someone.
That’s not sarcasm, just my inner writing mentor.
Sure, guns are used to KILL more people, but computers are used to do A LOT of bad, things.
Estimates vary widely, but 2015 was thought to have had $400 billion from cyber crime. Countless numbers of people have been stalked, lured, or other wise hurt by people online. People use them to buy illegal things, buy and sell sex, buy and sell people, trade in illegal porn, network terrorists and other fanatics, etc etc. And countless of horrible Twilight Fan Fic stories. (The horror… the horror…)
At any rate, we have lot and lots of gun laws. None of those have shown a direct correlation to a reduction in gun crime. Areas that have stricter gun laws (including registration for some guns in some states) have the same problems or even worse problems than other areas. Just like making recreational drugs super double illegal hasn’t actually stopped people from wanting and getting them. So if you think we are just a few laws away from reducing gun crime for good, I disagree.
If you think we should do it if it saves “just one life”, I can apply that logic to things you and I use every day.
Still, we have a situation where an inexperienced person can legally buy a weapon capable of murdering dozens of people in a nightclub. I think reasonable ways to prevent that situation are worth exploring.
10 Likes
Define reasonable. It’s subjective yes?
To me the most reasonable way for a person to protect themselves from an armed aggressor is to shoot them. How? Well you would need to be armed as well.
“vaguely similar to other developed countries”? (which, I might note, remain as free or freer than the US, across a range of metrics, despite having sane firearms laws. Or maybe that’s because they have sane firearms laws.)
No, not really. Not unless you’re deliberately attempting to dissemble.
But … @Mister44 just got finished telling us that basically none of the firearms are used in commission of a crime. Therefore you don’t need to defend yourself against this fantasy scenario, therefore you don’t need a firearm. Well done to you two! You’ve solved the issue!
10 Likes
So you’d be fine with all guns being manufactured without the capacity to kill people?
I’m glad we turn out to agree on something related to gun issues.
6 Likes
It is objectively unreasonable to avoid discussing alternatives. You willfully suppress the ability to reason.
3 Likes
This is a line of thought that doesn’t get much discussion but I’ve started wondering: what if the central problem is…us? As in we, the people of the United States. As I’ve said before, U.S. culture seems to cherish the right to bear arms but doesn’t respect it.
Is it plausible that our biggest problem is cultural? And if so, what then?
2 Likes
