A typical response from 2A supporters

Reality · Jul 31, 2023

DentalFloss said: ↑

You're welcome!!

Look, the Constitution says what it says, and what it says is pretty clear to anyone with even an ounce of intellectual honesty, and you can't just change it be wishing for it to be so. You can get it amended if you have enough support, but such support does not exist... Even if you could get it through Congress with a 2/3rds majority, which is currently not possible, you will never manage to find 38 states willing to compromise their citizen's rights to such a degree. Period.

And soon, virtually all existing gun control laws will probably be invalidated as the USSC puts more and more laws and cases under the umbrella and spirit of the Bruen decision, which requires all gun control laws to have historical precedents in statutes dating back to 1791... If the government cannot show examples of that, they will lose, which means the 1986 FOP... Gone. The GCA... Gone. The Brady Bill... Gone. Because of our natural birthright to self-defense, which every human is entitled to, even if most governments do not recognize it.
Click to expand...

Turtledude · Jul 31, 2023

edna kawabata said: ↑

Besides knowing how to use it, preventing its theft and using gun safety, the wider social implications should be a concern to gun owners; their misuse and their availability to illegal actors. At present anyone can buy a gun and ammunition but the right wishes to do nothing about that besides arm more people and warehouse after its illegal use….if caught.

You don’t see a difference between “conscientious” gun owners and those that are not so much and the inability to differentiate between the two?

As I said the easiest way to get a gun is through a private seller (legal or illegal) and that is how most guns are obtained, but 99% of handguns start out their life legally before they enter the black market and its not “minuscule”. Depending on legal gun owners to do the "right thing" has not diminished the flow to the black market. The right feels no responsibility to attempt to control that.

Are you for fully funding the ATF and removing NRA approved restrictions on it? There are 140,000 FFLs in the US and it inspected 7,000 last year. They can get to a FFL maybe once every five years and if they are found in violation, like guns sold off the books, they can appeal which takes more years.

Thanks for proving my point.

Or you can say “no thanks” to things like laws to prevent industry from poisoning the public over maximizing profit, laws that demand drug companies thoroughly test drugs, public health standards, Social Security, which 40% of the elderly would live in poverty without, public funding of police and fire departments…..You're okay with that.
Click to expand...

nothing in common with the control freak mentality that the left pushes. Social security is a scam btw. Public funding of stuff like the police and fire is a legitimate and necessary function of government.

NMNeil · Aug 29, 2023

Nwolfe35 said: ↑

I don't blame guns for violent people. I blame easy access to guns by violent people for mass shootings.

People drive, some people drink and drive. I don't think the solution is to take away all cars from all people. By the same token, however, I don't think allowing everyone access to military vehicles is a good idea either. Drunk drivers with access to military vehicles would cause even more death. Non drunk drivers with military vehicles would be emboldened to take actions that might result in death that they wouldn't otherwise take.

Guns are the same. Those relatively few people who use guns for violent reasons are able to do more damage because they have access to semi automatic weapons. Those people who are not violent are emboldened to do things they wouldn't normally do because they are "packing"

I don't want anyone to have access to a vehicle with armor plating, equipped with a gun turret and a ram on the front of it. It doesn't matter if they drive drunk or not.
I don't anyone to have access to a semi automatic weapon with an extended clip and armor piercing rounds. It doesn't matter if they are violent or not.

I don't want to remove ALL guns just as I don't want to remove ALL vehicles. But the ones that are more dangerous, yeah we need better control over those.
Click to expand...

We could start by banning the sale of these;
https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/gallery/fastest-production-cars-1234810377/3-528/
And plagiarizing the standard anti gun rhetoric, if nobody needs an AK-47 to go hunting then surely nobody needs a 300mph car to go to the supermarket.

An Taibhse · Sep 11, 2023

Nwolfe35 said: ↑

Not if they are not available. I don't see any bank robbers using bazookas to rob banks.

You can own a tank as long as the main gun is disabled and you only drive it on private land.

y ou can legally own a fully functional tank or artillery piece; I know someone in Wisconsin that owns both…. not sure of many tanks he has, but it is several.

Fine, you can own an AR-15 as long as the firing pin is disabled and you can't take it off your property.

But you don't want to change the definition of what guns can be "legally owned."
That's the very issue I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

A typical response from 2A supporters

Reality Well-Known Member

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

NMNeil Well-Known Member

An Taibhse Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

A typical response from 2A supporters

Reality Well-Known Member

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

NMNeil Well-Known Member

An Taibhse Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches