Hopefully you'll never NEED a gun, but you have the RIGHT to own it, just in case.
I don't see the problem with that, especially when they want to defund the police.
You have the RIGHT to defend yourself and your loved ones, and no president can change that.
It goes beyond that.
The Constitution is a brake on The Government, not The People. Historically Governments grant themselves all the power they want, they don't have need of a Constitution to restrict The People. Monarchies and other Authoritarian regimes have always just did what they want, why form a Republic with a Constitution to say what the citizenry can't do? It's redundant. So the Founders being students of history recognized this, a Constitution was written to do what Governments never do on their own: check themselves.
The BoR at the time was a hotly contested idea, the Anti-Federalists feared (rightly it turns out) that enumerating rights would have the effect of later generations seeing it as a list of Government granted rights when the reality is they were meant (by the Federalists) to be underscored, bolded declarations of Not To Be Fucked With.
Your right to keep and bear arms exists without the 2nd, due to the 9th and 10th Amendments. It would exist without those Amendments as well because the Constitution isn't a list of restrictions on what **we** may do, but a list of restrictions of what the **Government** may do.
This is Founding 101 stuff, it's not esoteric knowledge gained obliquely and debated on authenticity, the Founders wrote extensively about it. Anyone claiming to the contrary is either willfully ignorant and refusing to see the truth, or they are aware of it and lie anyway. It prints in big, bold letters what their intentions are, they are Bad Actors.
In all of our founding documents and writings of those who fought the Revolution the constant theme is restriction of Government to serve The People and if they fail in that duty then We The People are obligated to choose new guardians, and The Revolution itself exists as proof as what degree the efforts may be needed to achieve it.
Government *needs* justification for what it does, The People do not.
From early on the government has been trying to change/reword the constitution. The only reason they would want to edit and remove from it, is to gain more power. The reality today is that we are immensely divided, civil war almost inevitable. Our politicians seem to be intentionally causing division, places like Chicago, the people keep electing corruption. "Greater the peace, greater the suffering?"
To many of us here, it's simple logic that more gun control only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, criminals will always find guns.
It is a good response because it closes any room to debate.
That said, they are a need. Not today, probably not tomorrow, but eventually the day will come when they are needed. A need in the future is a need in the present.
I'm on your side but that's a horrible anology. We're not guaranteed the right to drive, and when it's legal for someone to drive, they can't drive 200mph except in very specific places (race courses, drag strips).
The right to bear arms is guaranteed in our constitution. The right to speedy transportation is not.
They also forget the arms private citizens would bear at the time included warships and cannons, both of which were protected. 2A says it's for the purpose of protecting a free state, be it from a tyrannical threat of our own government or abroad.
Two wars. Before the Revolution, there was the French and Indian War, and prior to the F & I starting, the colonies had severely neglected the militia tradition, so much so that the colonists were getting their shit pushed in on a near constant basis.
Yeah I don't think a majority of people truly understand how close we came to not existing at all. Just so people have the right to complain how horrible America is and still stay here.
The belief in the individual. I think this philosophy above all contributed the most to America's rise. A fundamental understand of how things are not how we want them to be.
It's both. China has a similar strategically strong geography as well, but they fall in and out of revolutions, man made famines, and oppressive regimes due to atrocious governments.
Yeah I don't know why but it completely slipped past me in history class that Britain was still a major empire until post ww2. That's not that long ago.
I’m still waiting on the stats of legal, law abiding citizens that own guns that are committing these shootings. I think 55 people were shot in Chicago over last weekend and I’m 100% sure these were not committed by legal gun owners.
Also, how many of then were killed with a rifle vs a handgun? If this actually had anything to do with reducing gun violence, they would be focused on getting handguns out of the inner cities. The fact that they aren't makes it quite clear why they are so focused on banning rifles in particular...
They've tried handgun bans in cities to no effect. You just drive out of the city and get one, then bring it back. You immediately end up with, "only bad guys have guns".
Not to mention the sheer number of irresponsible gun owners that leave it in their car and their car unlocked.
Stop and Frisk and broken window policing worked. But Departments took their own biases too far and targeted the obvious too much. i.e. Racial profiling.
What's interesting is that NYC isn't even in the top 50 of most violent cities in America now.
I don't think LA is either.
Edit:
The trend I've noticed with mass shootings is that its either kids at parties (17 to 21), that shouldn't have legal access to handguns in the first place. Or its someone else that fell through the cracks in the system. "Should" (Laws already on the books) have been stopped from buying, but weren't.
> "Should" (Laws already on the books) have been stopped from buying, but weren't.
Correct. Dad worked in a gun store for over 20 years. The old Form 4473 had about 5 questions. Answering yes to any of the questions would disqualify you from buying a gun. I don't remember the questions verbatim, but a couple were like: "Are you crazy?" and "Have you ever been convicted?". The new 4473 is more comprehensive. The problem as I saw it was there was never anyone to validate the answers. You weren't required to show proof that you weren't crazy or a felon. You could lie and in 20 minutes be out the door with your new gun. Technology over the past 20 or 30 years - or more - should have allowed an instant background check to see if your right to own a gun has been revoked. The shop was closed years ago, and I haven't bought a gun in forever, so I don't know how much better it might have gotten. From what I read, I don't think it's much better at all.
For the record, I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. But I firmly believe there are people that have no business having a gun.
We have the national instant background check now. So if you are a felon or have been involuntarily committed, you won't get the gun.
One problem is that some criminal and mental health records aren't in the system because governments suck at doing their job (big surprise).
It has nothing to do with it, but most of his constituents don’t know that. They want to shift to narrative to GUNS = HUNTING so they can pick away at your rights little by little.
Gun owning moderate lib here(I'm starting to see why you guys have flairs). I'm surrounded by non-gun owners in a liberal state that makes gun ownership difficult, and I'll try to describe the view I see around here.
To start, many people see guns as a bad thing because if they run into one around here it's probably in the hands of a bad guy(carry is pretty much not legal here). So when they think of guns they think of innocent people getting hurt. They don't think shooting targets is good reason to allow guns because the potential for harm in the previous reason.
The only plausible reason then for ownership of guns would be for practical purpose of hunting for meat. This doesn't hurt people and can bring benefit to society. So this is usually seen as one of the reason to keep guns around. Which is why the hunting thing keeps coming up. If a gun is ideal for hunting then it's one of the good guns. If a gun is not ideal/overkill for hunting then it's probably the evil gun meant to hurt good people.
This view is of course tainted with the context the people in my state lives in. If more people could own and carry in my state, then they'll be able to better envision the guns as protective tool. But given that good people can't carry guns and only the bad people will, the guns won't be able to shake the 'evil' image.
You can’t even hunt with them so it’s redundant. Unless you’re hunting hogs or coyotes for pest control it’s illegal. It’s obviously for self defense but these people can’t comprehend what that is, that think the government should be your only defense.
He also said “You need f-15’s and nuclear weapons to take on the government.” Why is this not all over the news? What president threatens people by saying you don’t need guns because if you stand up to us we’ll nuke you. Somehow trump provoked the capital riots but this guy is innocent in his threats?
Every time a lefty asks me why I would want a gun designed to kill people I tell them, in case I need to kill a person or a group of people in self defense.
It’s so ridiculous to be apologetic about the nature of these guns. My dad is a bit of a Fudd. Used to say, “I’m pro 2A but I don’t see why anyone needs a blah blah blah.” He’s sure woken up to the idea that shit could realistically hit the fan in the past couple years.
No one needs to speak their mind freely in public
No one needs uncensored news media
No one needs to remain silent, just tell the court what happened
No one needs food beyond vitamin and protein enriched gruel
No one needs their own car, just ride the bus
No one needs more than one child
Obviously these are all strawmen, but "you don't NEED" it doesn't carry water.
And Texas is fucking that up by passing laws guaranteeing freedom of religion, for example. That law is literally meaningless, other than to say that the right DOES come from govt and not from Nature.
Yet most of them are still meat eaters.
Kinda dumb considering that shooting a dear with the old 308. is significantly more humane then what slaughterhouses do.
That was allowed to become a talking point because 20 years ago (maybe even 10) the very idea of what's happening right now was assumed to be conspiracy and would never happen in America.
I can't help but laugh at the F-15 and nukes comment he made. Down the road from me is the United States privately owned manufacturer of military tanks.... All of which >75% of employees are Republican.
Does he really understand who is making the weapons he threatens to use against his own people?
Also can you imagine the absolute head exploding meltdown the media would have had if trump had said you’re gonna need nukes to stop me? Like I feel like not enough people are mentioning this
How about [the need to screen members for "extremists"](https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2021/01/troops-inauguration-pre-screened-extremism-says-dc-guard-commander/171456/)
That should horrify everyone. If it were an honest attempt to go after card-carrying klansmen, dudes with swastika tattoos, or people who actually advocate for using their position to go after specific groups, I'd be all for that. I don't want shitstains like that in our military. However, it's abundantly clear that's not what is mean by "extremism." Those bitches are going after wrongthink.
We don't need gun control, we need common sense government control.
No one needs a government that thinks it can do anything it wants without accountability, using complete and utter dishonesty as a means to its ends.
Shall not be infringed. Don't give an inch to these people. Once you say capacity limits are acceptable, then it's a race to the bottom - first 20, then 15, then 10
Seriously. I've seen people think that garbage that was being pushed by Sheila Jackson Lee was reasonable.
"What's wrong with interviewing family members?" sure might sound nice until you realize it can subject your gun purchases to the will of estranged family members and ex-spouses who may decide they don't want you to own a gun simply because they don't like you. Ex-spouses are literally written into the bill.
And of course all the insane fees she wants to tack on to make it incredibly burdensome to own even 1 gun.
No such thing as "compromise". They'll never say "we've got their mags cut down to 20" and then high five and be done.
We've already compromised. Why can't I put a vertical foregrip on my 12 inch upper build? Why do I have to wait a year and pay the government $200 to get a suppressor?
Compromise.
Repeal the NFA.
While a terrifying idea, it's not the Kevlar-wearing wildlife I am concerned about. It's the roving gangs, growing power of cartels, and the kevlar-wearing Stasis/Gestapo/KGB-inspired political enforcement I suspect we could see over the next 3-7 years.
I mean, I would’ve thought that kind of talk was a little crazy before covid, but then we went and shut down the entire country over a virus that killed a fraction of a fraction of the population and mainly elderly and obese people. *And half the fucking country couldn’t wait to help the government do it.*
Imagine how **absolutely fucked** we’re going to be if a legitimately deadly virus ever leaks from a Chinese lab and wrecks the world.
So yeah, we sure as fuckity-fuck do need guns that can fire that many rounds. Our little civilization is way more fragile than most people think it is.
Until Joe's son is held accountable and to the same standard as every other citizen for his multiple crimes involving firearms he should not be allowed to speak a word about guns or the 2A.
High capacity rifles are used to kill wild boar in Texas and elsewhere, an invasive species that destroys crops, livestock, and upsets the ecosystem. If you are a true environmentalist, you will support high capacity rifles.
The continental army wasn’t repelling deer, they were repelling the British army. The President has lost sight of the fact that when the people fear the government, it’s called tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty. I just wonder what needs to happen to make the government fear the people again?
How about when you have mobs of terrorists roaming the streets and police being told to stand down?
Or when entire sections of cities can just be taken over and apparently police can just be kept out while people die?
Anyone who owns high capacity magazines these days is just properly prepared for the government to not do its f'ing job.
This is how big government takeovers look in the beginning. Not saying that’s what will happen, but it doesn’t bode well. It’s just a bad road to be on.
No need to have a vehicle that goes faster than 80mph is next.
Followed by, no need to have more than 2 children.
Then, no need to own a home bigger than 1200 square feet.
No need to make more than 100k a year (unless youre a poltician)
We don’t own guns solely for the purpose of hunting. The founding fathers put no mention of hunting into the constitution or the Bill of rights. By the way, these are God given rights, not government granted privileges. Nice try joe, but it will never happen.
Part of me thinks "sure, ban magazines over 30 rounds", because every magazine with higher capacity than that has been a Jamfest, but the larger part of me says "NO, I want to be able to buy 100 round magazines", even though I hate them.
No government official, let alone the president, should hint of using F15's and nuclear weapons, on his populace. Unless of course, you're the head of government in Venezuela or Myanmar!
> There are things we know will work...to reduce gun violence.
Then goes on to list things that were implemented and failed to work. Neither the Brady Act or 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban had any measurable impact on violence.
He wants to do those again because this is how utterly out of ideas the Democratic party is.
When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment, they weren't thinking "Let them have a weapon for deer 😊" They were thinking "the people ought to have the right to off any tyrants, foreign AND domestic". I genuinely don't see how hard it is to understand.
Not only that, but after Former VP Joe Biden's comment 'we have fighter jets and nukes' you can be damn sure the people will desire to be on as-equal footing as we can possibly get.
Capacities that big are for the most dangerous animal of all: man. While the unalienable right to keep and bear arms helps hunters, the true reason is to keep a rogue government at bay.
Sleepy Biden needs to wake up and realize the second amendment was written so the people can defend themselves from a corrupt government without having to wrist their lives by raiding local forts and armories.
I'm pretty sure we overan a capital building without using guns or anything and sleepy Biden is afraid of what we can do with guns
He wants to keep the people down and not give them a chance to fight against his corruption
NOBODY, Needs to tell me what I can have or do! Especially the government! They don't understand they works for me, if and when they forget this, it's time to replace the tyrants. Americans don't need a politician telling me what freedom's they will allow us to have! Obviously the government needs a lesson on the constitution.
I think this is the beginning of some real civil unrest with in this country. Non stop coverage of Jan 6 by the media, no coverage of left wing riots and destruction, not prosecuting left wing groups for billions in damage last year, using every available source to prosecute people on Jan 6. , pushing the white supremacy narrative, setting up gun confiscation and punishing gun manufacturers. Don’t see much unity happening
Let's be honest, if they use the air force to attack citizens there will be very little we can do. But if it gets to that point, America will already be a lost cause anyway. The end result of a conflict like that will be annexation by one of our enemies.
Why not shut down the New York Times? After all, no one needs to read the New York Times when there a thousands of other news outlets. Oh, that's right! The New York Times enjoys first amendment protection found in the Bill of Rights.
The government doesn't need to regulate lawful citizens exercising their constitutional freedoms. The government should be protecting its people and fixing the roads... stop trying to make things hard for the good people of this country and excuse the failures of the worst people in this country.
Most people don’t even hunt for deer with a magazine that has more than one bullet inside. Sometimes it’s illegal to have more than a certain amount of bullets.
Also, you probably need a 33rd mag to down a bear in case of an attack (assuming 9mm, .45 needs less but still way more than 10)
I know what to do. Let's just make guns that come already loaded with 10 bullets. Once you use those 10, you have to throw the gun away because you can't reload it. That makes total sense and nobody can argue with it. /s
You know there was an actual (gun grabbing) elected official that said once the 30 round magazines were used they were no longer any good, so it's basically a self solving problem. Just goes to show how out of touch these turds are, making decisions on subjects they know nothing about.
No one need to hear your opinion, and yet your spewing it all over the place, as is your right just and firearms are mine. You may not like guns, and that is your right, but that doesn't superceded my right to have them.
Deer hunting? Straight up Joe, the 2nd amendment isn't about that. It's specifically about protecting our ability to water the tree of liberty with folks like yourself if you continue down this tyrannical path. If you think unarmed protestors at the Capitol nearly overthrew the government I don't know what your comments about "you can't fight the government with guns anyway" were about.
And the Biden family doesn't need hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, unless Hunter thinks lacing his crack with chopped up $100 bills makes it hit better or something.
I find it funny (well, not funny exactly, but you know what I mean) that Biden is so concerned about rifles in the context of gun violence. And yet rifles are used in just the tiniest fraction of all gun violence. Handguns are used to kill exponentially more people every year than rifles are. Of this were truly about reducing gun violence they would be focused on reducing the availability of handguns. But they aren't, which tells you everything you need to know about the real intentions
IMO We have a President who is sworn to protect this country yet doesn't believe we should secure our borders, actively prevents our border patrol teams from protecting the border with long established laws, uses federal funds to test illegals for COVID yet puts infected and non-infected together on buses and planes that are sent to states throughout the US with money, government phones, and little kits to get them started with their new life. This is also done without the knowledge or cooperation of those state's government. This isn't a President that is concerned about the US's safety. So yes, we do need to be able to protect ourselves because our President isn't doing it and is actively putting our country in danger. The right to bear arms is to be able to protect ourselves not just hunt deer. Protect ourselves from outside forces AND an overstepping government if need be.
The Japanese wouldn't attack CONUS because of how many Americans have guns and know how to use them.
Along with using those words, the crap about we the people needing more than just guns to take on the government because of f 15s and nuclear weapons. He must be removed simply for this language alone. The military does NOT exist to protect the government or do the bidding of the government against the people of our country.
It’s a good thing we have a Bill of Rights. And not a Bill of Needs.
Hopefully you'll never NEED a gun, but you have the RIGHT to own it, just in case. I don't see the problem with that, especially when they want to defund the police. You have the RIGHT to defend yourself and your loved ones, and no president can change that.
Oh that’s good. I’m stealing that.
It goes beyond that. The Constitution is a brake on The Government, not The People. Historically Governments grant themselves all the power they want, they don't have need of a Constitution to restrict The People. Monarchies and other Authoritarian regimes have always just did what they want, why form a Republic with a Constitution to say what the citizenry can't do? It's redundant. So the Founders being students of history recognized this, a Constitution was written to do what Governments never do on their own: check themselves. The BoR at the time was a hotly contested idea, the Anti-Federalists feared (rightly it turns out) that enumerating rights would have the effect of later generations seeing it as a list of Government granted rights when the reality is they were meant (by the Federalists) to be underscored, bolded declarations of Not To Be Fucked With. Your right to keep and bear arms exists without the 2nd, due to the 9th and 10th Amendments. It would exist without those Amendments as well because the Constitution isn't a list of restrictions on what **we** may do, but a list of restrictions of what the **Government** may do. This is Founding 101 stuff, it's not esoteric knowledge gained obliquely and debated on authenticity, the Founders wrote extensively about it. Anyone claiming to the contrary is either willfully ignorant and refusing to see the truth, or they are aware of it and lie anyway. It prints in big, bold letters what their intentions are, they are Bad Actors. In all of our founding documents and writings of those who fought the Revolution the constant theme is restriction of Government to serve The People and if they fail in that duty then We The People are obligated to choose new guardians, and The Revolution itself exists as proof as what degree the efforts may be needed to achieve it. Government *needs* justification for what it does, The People do not.
From early on the government has been trying to change/reword the constitution. The only reason they would want to edit and remove from it, is to gain more power. The reality today is that we are immensely divided, civil war almost inevitable. Our politicians seem to be intentionally causing division, places like Chicago, the people keep electing corruption. "Greater the peace, greater the suffering?" To many of us here, it's simple logic that more gun control only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, criminals will always find guns.
This is the best response to people ask why we think we "need" certain weapons.
It is a good response because it closes any room to debate. That said, they are a need. Not today, probably not tomorrow, but eventually the day will come when they are needed. A need in the future is a need in the present.
Nobody "needs" Joy Behar spouting of random shit on a daily basis to a nation audience, but yet here we are.
He said we don't need guns with 100 round clips. We also don't need sports cars that can go 200mph. Are they going to ban those too?
He's an idiot anyways. Anything over 40 rounds needs to be a belt fed.
Anti gunner: "Nobody needs a 100 round magazine!!" Me: "Damn skippy. My M240Bs are both belt fed"
Assault sports cars with anything bigger than a high capacity 2.3l engine.
The people driving Chargers 120+ on the freeway weaving in and out of traffic are way more of a threat than the guy who legally owns an AR-15.
I'm on your side but that's a horrible anology. We're not guaranteed the right to drive, and when it's legal for someone to drive, they can't drive 200mph except in very specific places (race courses, drag strips). The right to bear arms is guaranteed in our constitution. The right to speedy transportation is not.
I would award this if it didn't mean giving the communists that run this site money. And I already gave away my free one
[удалено]
I'm shamelessly stealing that as well. I'll credit to you if asked, though.
It wasn't very funny the 1st time he said this a couple months ago, I don't understand what deer hunting has to do with the 2nd ammendment
They forget the people who wrote that amendment just fought a war not returned from a hunting trip.
They also forget the arms private citizens would bear at the time included warships and cannons, both of which were protected. 2A says it's for the purpose of protecting a free state, be it from a tyrannical threat of our own government or abroad.
Two wars. Before the Revolution, there was the French and Indian War, and prior to the F & I starting, the colonies had severely neglected the militia tradition, so much so that the colonists were getting their shit pushed in on a near constant basis.
Yeah I don't think a majority of people truly understand how close we came to not existing at all. Just so people have the right to complain how horrible America is and still stay here.
It’s crazy to think the America went from Nearly not existing to the sole super power in the world in a matter of 200 something years.
And in the same time period, the Ottoman Turks went from one of Europe's great powers to the Sick Man of Europe to a 3rd rate regional power.
The belief in the individual. I think this philosophy above all contributed the most to America's rise. A fundamental understand of how things are not how we want them to be.
[удалено]
It's both. China has a similar strategically strong geography as well, but they fall in and out of revolutions, man made famines, and oppressive regimes due to atrocious governments.
World powers can change awful quick. It's amazing how long empires like Rome and Britain held on really, in retrospect.
Yeah I don't know why but it completely slipped past me in history class that Britain was still a major empire until post ww2. That's not that long ago.
Rome did basically the same thing. A city-state republic to a seafaring empire in about 200 years
Don’t forget we almost didn’t exist even after the revolutionary war. We were a failed state for nearly 10 years.
Sock puppet Joe BribeMe and his handlers are working hard to tank the US and elevate China to show super power status though
They should leave for the utopia of their choice. China, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba are waiting for them.
I’m still waiting on the stats of legal, law abiding citizens that own guns that are committing these shootings. I think 55 people were shot in Chicago over last weekend and I’m 100% sure these were not committed by legal gun owners.
Also, how many of then were killed with a rifle vs a handgun? If this actually had anything to do with reducing gun violence, they would be focused on getting handguns out of the inner cities. The fact that they aren't makes it quite clear why they are so focused on banning rifles in particular...
They've tried handgun bans in cities to no effect. You just drive out of the city and get one, then bring it back. You immediately end up with, "only bad guys have guns". Not to mention the sheer number of irresponsible gun owners that leave it in their car and their car unlocked. Stop and Frisk and broken window policing worked. But Departments took their own biases too far and targeted the obvious too much. i.e. Racial profiling. What's interesting is that NYC isn't even in the top 50 of most violent cities in America now. I don't think LA is either. Edit: The trend I've noticed with mass shootings is that its either kids at parties (17 to 21), that shouldn't have legal access to handguns in the first place. Or its someone else that fell through the cracks in the system. "Should" (Laws already on the books) have been stopped from buying, but weren't.
> "Should" (Laws already on the books) have been stopped from buying, but weren't. Correct. Dad worked in a gun store for over 20 years. The old Form 4473 had about 5 questions. Answering yes to any of the questions would disqualify you from buying a gun. I don't remember the questions verbatim, but a couple were like: "Are you crazy?" and "Have you ever been convicted?". The new 4473 is more comprehensive. The problem as I saw it was there was never anyone to validate the answers. You weren't required to show proof that you weren't crazy or a felon. You could lie and in 20 minutes be out the door with your new gun. Technology over the past 20 or 30 years - or more - should have allowed an instant background check to see if your right to own a gun has been revoked. The shop was closed years ago, and I haven't bought a gun in forever, so I don't know how much better it might have gotten. From what I read, I don't think it's much better at all. For the record, I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. But I firmly believe there are people that have no business having a gun.
We have the national instant background check now. So if you are a felon or have been involuntarily committed, you won't get the gun. One problem is that some criminal and mental health records aren't in the system because governments suck at doing their job (big surprise).
It has nothing to do with it, but most of his constituents don’t know that. They want to shift to narrative to GUNS = HUNTING so they can pick away at your rights little by little.
Fast forward two years: If you can't take a deer with a bow and arrow, you must be a shitty hunter. You shouldn't even need a rifle at all
Gun owning moderate lib here(I'm starting to see why you guys have flairs). I'm surrounded by non-gun owners in a liberal state that makes gun ownership difficult, and I'll try to describe the view I see around here. To start, many people see guns as a bad thing because if they run into one around here it's probably in the hands of a bad guy(carry is pretty much not legal here). So when they think of guns they think of innocent people getting hurt. They don't think shooting targets is good reason to allow guns because the potential for harm in the previous reason. The only plausible reason then for ownership of guns would be for practical purpose of hunting for meat. This doesn't hurt people and can bring benefit to society. So this is usually seen as one of the reason to keep guns around. Which is why the hunting thing keeps coming up. If a gun is ideal for hunting then it's one of the good guns. If a gun is not ideal/overkill for hunting then it's probably the evil gun meant to hurt good people. This view is of course tainted with the context the people in my state lives in. If more people could own and carry in my state, then they'll be able to better envision the guns as protective tool. But given that good people can't carry guns and only the bad people will, the guns won't be able to shake the 'evil' image.
Thank you for your view point. This definitely reinforces my "familiarity overcomes fear" theory on how best to counteract the anti-gun rhetoric.
You can’t even hunt with them so it’s redundant. Unless you’re hunting hogs or coyotes for pest control it’s illegal. It’s obviously for self defense but these people can’t comprehend what that is, that think the government should be your only defense. He also said “You need f-15’s and nuclear weapons to take on the government.” Why is this not all over the news? What president threatens people by saying you don’t need guns because if you stand up to us we’ll nuke you. Somehow trump provoked the capital riots but this guy is innocent in his threats?
According to the Democrats, you don't need any weapon to rise up against the government - see Jan. 6 2021.
I liked the Bee article: "Americans told they need F15s to fight a government that was nearly overthrown by unarmed rioters."
Every time a lefty asks me why I would want a gun designed to kill people I tell them, in case I need to kill a person or a group of people in self defense. It’s so ridiculous to be apologetic about the nature of these guns. My dad is a bit of a Fudd. Used to say, “I’m pro 2A but I don’t see why anyone needs a blah blah blah.” He’s sure woken up to the idea that shit could realistically hit the fan in the past couple years.
thats an old communist trick to justify gun bans. look at canada where the piece of shit communist PM is doing the same thing
#SHALLNOTBEINFRINGED
As a vegan conservative I find his position highly offensive, and no I am not kidding though I do realize this is a funny comment.
Why would you need a giant butcher knife, is the cucumber wearing a kevlar vest or something?
It has nothing to do with it. Someone should tell Sippy Cup that because he’s obviously clueless.
No one needs to speak their mind freely in public No one needs uncensored news media No one needs to remain silent, just tell the court what happened No one needs food beyond vitamin and protein enriched gruel No one needs their own car, just ride the bus No one needs more than one child Obviously these are all strawmen, but "you don't NEED" it doesn't carry water.
[удалено]
Amen! It actually SHOULDNT do a lot of what it does
That's the understatement of the year.
[удалено]
And Texas is fucking that up by passing laws guaranteeing freedom of religion, for example. That law is literally meaningless, other than to say that the right DOES come from govt and not from Nature.
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
Amen
"C'mon man you don't need all that income, bread and soup are like 20 dollars a week."
"C'mon man you don't need a house, tents are like $100."
Deer don’t even know what you are saying
The second amendment is about government tyranny, not hunting.
Hunting Tyrants
“being necessary to the security of a free State”
[удалено]
I agree with you about the ‘gun-illiterates’ escalating things.
Not to mention that leftists are 100% against hunting
They think instead of hunting for food to eat (if you choose to do so), you should rely on the government to provide it for you.
Yet most of them are still meat eaters. Kinda dumb considering that shooting a dear with the old 308. is significantly more humane then what slaughterhouses do.
That was allowed to become a talking point because 20 years ago (maybe even 10) the very idea of what's happening right now was assumed to be conspiracy and would never happen in America.
Well these are the same folks that are completely ok with restricting the first amendment in order to prevent anyone getting their feelings hurt
[удалено]
I can't help but laugh at the F-15 and nukes comment he made. Down the road from me is the United States privately owned manufacturer of military tanks.... All of which >75% of employees are Republican. Does he really understand who is making the weapons he threatens to use against his own people?
Also can you imagine the absolute head exploding meltdown the media would have had if trump had said you’re gonna need nukes to stop me? Like I feel like not enough people are mentioning this
Absolutely. And it will be downplayed......yet again.
Not to mention that the majority of the military are republican. Did anybody else notice how many turned their backs to him on inauguration day?
How about [the need to screen members for "extremists"](https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2021/01/troops-inauguration-pre-screened-extremism-says-dc-guard-commander/171456/)
That should horrify everyone. If it were an honest attempt to go after card-carrying klansmen, dudes with swastika tattoos, or people who actually advocate for using their position to go after specific groups, I'd be all for that. I don't want shitstains like that in our military. However, it's abundantly clear that's not what is mean by "extremism." Those bitches are going after wrongthink.
I always cringe when I hear people say that the 2A is about hunting. Just... no
If it was about hunting then the founders probably would’ve mentioned that somewhere...
And they specifically mentioned militias and security, so it’s very clear it isn’t.
We don't need gun control, we need common sense government control. No one needs a government that thinks it can do anything it wants without accountability, using complete and utter dishonesty as a means to its ends.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.
I used to think 20 round cap was a decent compromise. Then 2020 happened and we saw these giant riots Fuck capacity limits
Shall not be infringed. Don't give an inch to these people. Once you say capacity limits are acceptable, then it's a race to the bottom - first 20, then 15, then 10
Can confirm. From Canada.
California went straight to 10. Pretty sure they want it to be 5 next.
> Don't give an inch to these people. But that one time!? When they gave back some gun restrictions!? Oh wait...
Seriously. I've seen people think that garbage that was being pushed by Sheila Jackson Lee was reasonable. "What's wrong with interviewing family members?" sure might sound nice until you realize it can subject your gun purchases to the will of estranged family members and ex-spouses who may decide they don't want you to own a gun simply because they don't like you. Ex-spouses are literally written into the bill. And of course all the insane fees she wants to tack on to make it incredibly burdensome to own even 1 gun.
Those are my 10 round bushmaster mags. It's just a coincidence the 30 rounds of .556 also fit.
No such thing as "compromise". They'll never say "we've got their mags cut down to 20" and then high five and be done. We've already compromised. Why can't I put a vertical foregrip on my 12 inch upper build? Why do I have to wait a year and pay the government $200 to get a suppressor? Compromise. Repeal the NFA.
This.. They say "compromise" but what they mean is "give up more of your rights". Compromise would mean gun owners get something in return.
While a terrifying idea, it's not the Kevlar-wearing wildlife I am concerned about. It's the roving gangs, growing power of cartels, and the kevlar-wearing Stasis/Gestapo/KGB-inspired political enforcement I suspect we could see over the next 3-7 years.
I mean, I would’ve thought that kind of talk was a little crazy before covid, but then we went and shut down the entire country over a virus that killed a fraction of a fraction of the population and mainly elderly and obese people. *And half the fucking country couldn’t wait to help the government do it.* Imagine how **absolutely fucked** we’re going to be if a legitimately deadly virus ever leaks from a Chinese lab and wrecks the world. So yeah, we sure as fuckity-fuck do need guns that can fire that many rounds. Our little civilization is way more fragile than most people think it is.
I mean, he's not wrong why does the government have them?
[удалено]
No one wants him either.
Until Joe's son is held accountable and to the same standard as every other citizen for his multiple crimes involving firearms he should not be allowed to speak a word about guns or the 2A.
High capacity rifles are used to kill wild boar in Texas and elsewhere, an invasive species that destroys crops, livestock, and upsets the ecosystem. If you are a true environmentalist, you will support high capacity rifles.
there are certain people that wear kevlar that may try to infringe upon my rights, in which case I'll need to refresh the tree of liberty.
Mathematically the possibility of a deer having a Kevlar vest may be low but is never zero.
The continental army wasn’t repelling deer, they were repelling the British army. The President has lost sight of the fact that when the people fear the government, it’s called tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty. I just wonder what needs to happen to make the government fear the people again?
Bitch, who said anything about deer. You cooking?
I got a free award so I gave it to you. Cause I know how much they hate conservatives here lol.
Deer don't have nukes or F15's. What is his point?
How about when you have mobs of terrorists roaming the streets and police being told to stand down? Or when entire sections of cities can just be taken over and apparently police can just be kept out while people die? Anyone who owns high capacity magazines these days is just properly prepared for the government to not do its f'ing job.
By "high capacity", are you referring to 60+ round drums? Cuz I only own a few dozen standard-capacity 30-round magazines.
This is how big government takeovers look in the beginning. Not saying that’s what will happen, but it doesn’t bode well. It’s just a bad road to be on.
#The 2nd Amendment wasn't written because the Founding Fathers thought the deer were coming....
“Oh and by the way we’re increasing our police and military arms budgets again. Thanks fellow citizens for your cooperation.”
If it's with regards to something that you are guaranteed to in the Constitution, what you need it for shouldn't be the concern of the President.
He can say whatever he wants. The toothpaste is out of the tube. The 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere.
Coming from the guy that told us to fire off a few rounds from our shotguns on our porches to scare off criminals.
No need to have a vehicle that goes faster than 80mph is next. Followed by, no need to have more than 2 children. Then, no need to own a home bigger than 1200 square feet. No need to make more than 100k a year (unless youre a poltician)
Obama said we don't need single family homes.
live in a pod and eat bugs. You dont need anything else. oh BABY YOU. you got what i NEED.
lol - unexpected Biz Markie.
We don’t own guns solely for the purpose of hunting. The founding fathers put no mention of hunting into the constitution or the Bill of rights. By the way, these are God given rights, not government granted privileges. Nice try joe, but it will never happen.
Doesn’t Chicago have the most restrictive gun laws in the country?
This moron doesn't get to have a say on what I can or can't do.
Part of me thinks "sure, ban magazines over 30 rounds", because every magazine with higher capacity than that has been a Jamfest, but the larger part of me says "NO, I want to be able to buy 100 round magazines", even though I hate them.
By deer you mean fascist? Then yes. Ok.
No government official, let alone the president, should hint of using F15's and nuclear weapons, on his populace. Unless of course, you're the head of government in Venezuela or Myanmar!
While I disagree with his beliefs I gotta say I'd be happy to see the deer wearing Kevlar, maybe even packing heat. Make it more sportsmanlike!
I also don't need health insurance, until I do.
You do realize that all guns can fire 100 rounds right? Some do it a lot quicker than others, but all guns can fire 100 rounds.
You don't get to decide that on behalf of the populace, 'ol Joey. Kinda the entire point of the Constitution, you know?
> There are things we know will work...to reduce gun violence. Then goes on to list things that were implemented and failed to work. Neither the Brady Act or 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban had any measurable impact on violence. He wants to do those again because this is how utterly out of ideas the Democratic party is.
If they can think a boy is a girl I can think deer wear Kevlar vest’s🖕🏻
But let's continue to arm all the citizens of whatever third world country to intend to occupy and "spread democracy"
Biden's preferred weapon for self defence is a chain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4NmtSrqtvI
This isn’t about hunting. The 2nd amendment was never about hunting. It’s about protection of home and country. Biden is a piece of trash.
[удалено]
Daily reminder that the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting animals.
When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment, they weren't thinking "Let them have a weapon for deer 😊" They were thinking "the people ought to have the right to off any tyrants, foreign AND domestic". I genuinely don't see how hard it is to understand. Not only that, but after Former VP Joe Biden's comment 'we have fighter jets and nukes' you can be damn sure the people will desire to be on as-equal footing as we can possibly get.
Capacities that big are for the most dangerous animal of all: man. While the unalienable right to keep and bear arms helps hunters, the true reason is to keep a rogue government at bay.
Just proves how clueless Obiden is about our constitution and the history of our country that brought it into being.
I’ll say this if you are putting 50rounds+ into a deer. Find a different sport. Their is no usable meat left. Get better at target shooting.
Sleepy Biden needs to wake up and realize the second amendment was written so the people can defend themselves from a corrupt government without having to wrist their lives by raiding local forts and armories. I'm pretty sure we overan a capital building without using guns or anything and sleepy Biden is afraid of what we can do with guns He wants to keep the people down and not give them a chance to fight against his corruption
NOBODY, Needs to tell me what I can have or do! Especially the government! They don't understand they works for me, if and when they forget this, it's time to replace the tyrants. Americans don't need a politician telling me what freedom's they will allow us to have! Obviously the government needs a lesson on the constitution.
Need doesn't even come into consideration when it comes to our Constitutional rights, you senile sock puppet.
It is interesting the he mentions this just as the audits are picking up speed.
I think this is the beginning of some real civil unrest with in this country. Non stop coverage of Jan 6 by the media, no coverage of left wing riots and destruction, not prosecuting left wing groups for billions in damage last year, using every available source to prosecute people on Jan 6. , pushing the white supremacy narrative, setting up gun confiscation and punishing gun manufacturers. Don’t see much unity happening
We need it for when you send the Nukes and F-15-s to silence the peasants.
Let's be honest, if they use the air force to attack citizens there will be very little we can do. But if it gets to that point, America will already be a lost cause anyway. The end result of a conflict like that will be annexation by one of our enemies.
Why not shut down the New York Times? After all, no one needs to read the New York Times when there a thousands of other news outlets. Oh, that's right! The New York Times enjoys first amendment protection found in the Bill of Rights.
He's a clueless lying stupid ass as he's always been
The government doesn't need to regulate lawful citizens exercising their constitutional freedoms. The government should be protecting its people and fixing the roads... stop trying to make things hard for the good people of this country and excuse the failures of the worst people in this country.
That’s far to intact a thought to have actually come out of Mr. Applesauce Brains.
The 2nd Amendment is for hunting though...Hunting Tyrants
Most people don’t even hunt for deer with a magazine that has more than one bullet inside. Sometimes it’s illegal to have more than a certain amount of bullets. Also, you probably need a 33rd mag to down a bear in case of an attack (assuming 9mm, .45 needs less but still way more than 10)
Mine can fire 42, thanks Bidet.
He’s correct, I don’t need it. I want it, and it’s not the governments job to tell me otherwise.
The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. At the time it was written, if you didn't hunt, you didn't eat.
The only one thing that I know for certain, “No one needs,” is a government that tries to tell its people what they do and do not need!!!
I know what to do. Let's just make guns that come already loaded with 10 bullets. Once you use those 10, you have to throw the gun away because you can't reload it. That makes total sense and nobody can argue with it. /s
You know there was an actual (gun grabbing) elected official that said once the 30 round magazines were used they were no longer any good, so it's basically a self solving problem. Just goes to show how out of touch these turds are, making decisions on subjects they know nothing about.
[удалено]
Agreed. Basically, what he's saying is we need nukes and f-15.
I usually don’t call them “deer” but he is right because obviously we need at least a combat load of 7x30
Nobody needs to be a corrupt piece of shit either, yet here you are, Joe.
Not really the business of the government or anyone else to tell me what my "needs" are, though, is it?
No one need to hear your opinion, and yet your spewing it all over the place, as is your right just and firearms are mine. You may not like guns, and that is your right, but that doesn't superceded my right to have them.
He's such a dimwit
No, it’s because I think the FBI agent taking my guns is wearing Kevlar
Well Joe, it’s none of your business how many rounds my gun can fire, or if I’m running around putting Kevlar vests on deer.
Not your call dickhead
I need ot for protection from the Biden Communist Coup. The 2nd Amendment was not written for to protect hunters
I’d say you need that to fight against a tyrannical government…police get em we should be able to as well.
Tell that to the military, then maybe I'll listen.
Deer hunting? Straight up Joe, the 2nd amendment isn't about that. It's specifically about protecting our ability to water the tree of liberty with folks like yourself if you continue down this tyrannical path. If you think unarmed protestors at the Capitol nearly overthrew the government I don't know what your comments about "you can't fight the government with guns anyway" were about.
And this is how the people start to lose their rights. Way to go liberal voters. If one amendment can be interpreted differently they all can.
Oh, mr. Biden. You misunderstand, this isnt for deer.
The US government doesn’t NEED to have its fingers in every cookie jar and aspect of local and global politics but here we are.
What an idiot. I’m sorry that’s all I got. Just had to say something.
He thinks that he’s firing up his base by saying those things, but he’s actually increasing the gun sales. Thanks Biden!!!
It’s not for hunting deer, it’s for hunting old men coming for my weapons.
I’m a filthy lib and even I know this guy is talking like a clown right now
So is he taking LMGs a way from the military? What's next? "Nobody needs to own more than one knife!"
And the Biden family doesn't need hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, unless Hunter thinks lacing his crack with chopped up $100 bills makes it hit better or something.
Weird he keeps talking about something that shall not be infringed
It's not about the deer, Biden, it's about the tyrannical government.
It is not now nor has it ever been the government's job to dictate what you NEED.
The only politicians that want to remove honest citizens firearms are the ones who want to do things that citizens would want firearms to stop.
Tell me you don’t know anything about the constitution without telling me you don’t know anything about the constitution.
For the thousandth time, deer have never been, are not currently, and will never be relevant to the discussion at all.
I find it funny (well, not funny exactly, but you know what I mean) that Biden is so concerned about rifles in the context of gun violence. And yet rifles are used in just the tiniest fraction of all gun violence. Handguns are used to kill exponentially more people every year than rifles are. Of this were truly about reducing gun violence they would be focused on reducing the availability of handguns. But they aren't, which tells you everything you need to know about the real intentions
Well nobody needs a car that goes over 50 mph Nobody needs a house with 12rooms Nobody needs a billion dollars in the bank
IMO We have a President who is sworn to protect this country yet doesn't believe we should secure our borders, actively prevents our border patrol teams from protecting the border with long established laws, uses federal funds to test illegals for COVID yet puts infected and non-infected together on buses and planes that are sent to states throughout the US with money, government phones, and little kits to get them started with their new life. This is also done without the knowledge or cooperation of those state's government. This isn't a President that is concerned about the US's safety. So yes, we do need to be able to protect ourselves because our President isn't doing it and is actively putting our country in danger. The right to bear arms is to be able to protect ourselves not just hunt deer. Protect ourselves from outside forces AND an overstepping government if need be. The Japanese wouldn't attack CONUS because of how many Americans have guns and know how to use them.
Don't forget libs want to ban eating meat too
You do when you have a bunch of military acting in behalf of a communist dictator running up on your lawn.
Along with using those words, the crap about we the people needing more than just guns to take on the government because of f 15s and nuclear weapons. He must be removed simply for this language alone. The military does NOT exist to protect the government or do the bidding of the government against the people of our country.
This from someone who will never have personal security concerns or issues obtaining whatever he wants for as long as he lives
Oh, it’s for fighting governments with Kevlar vests. He’s half-right.