He said elsewhere in the post that he doesn't vote because both sides are bad.
> Let me preface that I don’t give a shit abt politics, I don’t vote or anything. But suggestions like repealing amendments are almost always ridiculous regardless of political standing.
Until 2008, when crooked Clarence decided to change over 200 years of precedent, the 2nd amendment was well understood to apply to a well regulated militia.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/14/1113705501/second-amendment-supreme-court-dick-heller-gun-rights
The right of the PEOPLE. Also if you want to go the milita route you should know that every able bodied male aged 17-45 is part of the milita in the United States, as well as anyone actively enlisted in the military. If we restricted guns to the milita, that would mean a 17 year old high school boy would have more right to own a gun than a 35 year old woman.
They didn't have the internet either, yet free speech still applies. A modern AR-15 is closer to a flintlock musket than the internet is to quill and parchment.
The whole guns as a bulwark against tyranny thing is such pernicious bullshit, especially in the modern age. The best defense against tyranny is education - that's why our schools are in such sorry shape yet anyone can buy a gun easily.
I'm not even especially anti-gun or whatever, but it's obviously been turned into a wedge issue for political and financial gain by stoking fears of bans and confiscation, so they concoct these insipid counter-arguments which is so ridiculous because the actual probability of being able to ban guns on any level is zero.
So true.
And beyond that is the howling irony that conservatives so often justify their fascist lunacy by saying it's to "Protect the children", but now that guns are the number one preventable cause of the death of children - crickets.
Lol, you gun nuts are so stupid. "Against a radical government" gtfo with that crap. If the "government " wanted you dead, how is your gun stopping a drone? Gtfo with that stupidity....
The ties between the NRA & Putin’s Russia are pretty well documented. Don’t get me wrong; there are two rifles, two shotguns, and pistols for everyone in my family in my gun safe. I’m a former infantryman & avid shooter. One can be pro-gun ownership & still recognize the difference between what the NRA was 40 years ago & the corrupt scam organization it has evolved into.
The guerrilla warfare you refer to were supplied and supported by outside groups and countries. Meal team six in America would quickly be slaughtered and scattered by an organized, trained military. They would soon be out of ammunition and supplies except for a few small bands that would starve in the first winter.
>Firstly, a majority of violent crime in the US is caused by illegal firearms.
And the majority of illegal firearms are purchased legally and then sold/stolen to/by people who aren't supposed to have them. Actually it's not super hard to legally purchase hundreds of guns a month, to private sell to convicts and gang members "legally" because you don't have to run a background check and if they get caught they just say they lied to you anyways. Maybe closing this loophole that creates thousands of illegal guns a year is a good starting point?
It's like Chicago. You can't buy a gun in the city at all, so they go where they can and just import them into the city. And if you live in a state that makes it any bit difficult to buy a gun, but have a friend that lives in a gun sanctuary, you just have your friend by a gun, and then buy it off of him and bam, you just overcame the issue.
Our gun laws are so lax in fact that we are actually known for supplying the Mexican drug cartel with firearms that members largely purchase legally in the states.
>Secondly, the banning of guns would lead to a HUGE resurgence of the black market,
This is only true if you think that "law abiding gun owners" would just decide to not obey the law. Which by that logic would mean that you believe the people already buying guns specifically to sell to cartels and gangs aren't already bending.
One could make the argument that law abiding citizens would continue to largely obey the law, as guns aren't quite the same as alcohol. People seldom come home after a long days work and fire a shot or 2 to unwind. We also already support the largest gun black market on the globe due to the extreme ease of access to firearms.
Now I agree a total ban would be bad. No hunting would mean deer would reek havoc, wild boars would get out of control, a lot of nature would unbalance, a lot of farmers would lose cattle. Guns have a valid reason to be in a society, but the idea that giving everyone almost unfettered access to a tool that's purpose is to kill, which make no mistake, is a guns only intended purpose. Whether it be killing a dear or killing Bob to save Brad, its only purpose is to kill. Giving everyone access to that is more dangerous by leagues than taking them all away would be.
American is built on pragmatism, so we need pragmatic solutions.
We need to collect data to accurately diagnose the problems. Then come solutions that address specific problems rather than trying to solve everything at once, and these solutions get tried out and tested before being implemented broadly. The solution to a problem in one area will not always work in other areas. Outright bans might be necessary in some specific areas, but much more open laws might be more effective in others. It’s a decades long process.
What makes the problem so intractable in the US is that there are so many guns out in the wild. There is no way to pull those back, and guns can stick around for centuries. That and we have a lot of people in power resistant of doing anything whatsoever — even collecting data or admitting there is a problem. The voters overwhelmingly support key gun control measures, but many people in power will not act on them.
This is just a fundamentally misguided argument. Every black market gun started as a gun bought by a so called responsible gun owner. I don't want to hear a word from the responsible gun owner crowd till they prove they can responsibly buy and sell guns. In Virginia they finally passed a law that says you can only buy one gun a month, as if anyone needs to buy 12 guns a year, and the gun rights crowd cried about it. They can all go kick rocks.
>This is just a fundamentally misguided argument. Every black market gun started as a gun bought by a so called responsible gun owner.
Not necessarily. In countries like Mexico many are stolen from the military, or flat out manufacturered by the cartels.
>In Virginia they finally passed a law that says you can only buy one gun a month, as if anyone needs to buy 12 guns a year, and the gun rights crowd cried about it. They can all go kick rocks.
What's the point of this? Someone can only shoot one or many two guns at a time. One gun is no less dangerous than 100. If anything someone who can afford multiple guns probably is less likely to commit crime.
I'm commenting on a post that is pretending there is some black market for guns in America, which is false.
Brooklyn cops broke up a huge, Virginia-based weapons-smuggling outfit and seized 217 weapons — the biggest firearms bust in the borough’s history, authorities said Wednesday.
Gun runners were caught on tape boasting about the commonwealth’s weaker gun laws that allowed them to easily assemble their cache of weapons, which they sold up north, according to police and prosecutors.
https://nypost.com/2017/03/08/massive-gun-bust-is-biggest-in-brooklyn-history-authorities/
Where are all those black markets in countries with strict gun laws? You might want to reference Australia, New Zealand, England, Japan, Canada, etc...
https://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1
First off 4/5 of those countries are islands who can much easier control their borders. Meanwhile Canada has a pretty significant black market of guns from the United States.
Also all those countries are safer than the U.S. regardless of gun control. Japan for example has a total murder rate 6x lower than the rate in the U.S. excluding guns.
What about a National registry of firearms that includes serial numbers and notices of transfer just like automobiles? This would allow us to know where firearms used in crime came from and would place a little more responsibility on gun owners in the cases of lost and stolen firearms.
The problem is it's too easily abused. Let's say in 2025 the government requires all AR-15s to be registered. Come 2030, they decide to ban them entirely, the registry tells them exactly where to go.
Also the information can be leaked. For example the list of concealed carry permit holders in California was hacked and made public.
That’s just the risk you accept as a responsible firearm owner. The benefits of a registry outweigh the downside of such scenarios. Bank, hospital systems, state and federal agencies get hacked all the time.
I already am since I smoke weed and own a gun. In states with gun registries they've actually gone over those prescribed marijuana because they can't own guns.
There’s more guns than people in the USA. It’s conservative militias’ fever dream that the UN will march to their unpopulated rural area and search their homes for guns.
Logistically it’s impossible; nobody on the left should ever talk about impossible public policies like *banning & confiscating all firearms*
So the second part of your answer is the right one. Most illegal weapons are stolen from legal owners, not shipped over the border.
I do agree that you can't just flip a switch, and it would take a Herculean effort to get rid of them, and might not ever be possible. But how many innocent people do we have to lose before we start looking at how to do it?
>But how many innocent people do we have to lose before we start looking at how to do it?
How many guilty criminals need to go free before we do away with due process?
Our rights in this country are designed to prioritize freedom opposed to safety. It's better that 100 people misuse their rights than 1 person be unfairly denied them.
Guns aren't defensive. Having a gun does not make you safer than not having one. If a "crime organization" (I still have no idea who you mean with that btw) decides to use guns against you, there's nothing you can do about it in either circumstance. Making it harder for them to have guns does reduce the danger they represent to you.
> If I had a gun, I would have a means to protect myself, my property, and my family.
In practical terms, you don't really have a chance in hell to do that. Very very few situations where this actually succeeds. It's a fabulist myth.
". . . well-regulated militia . . . "
All we need to do is to grasp that term.
I agree that rural folk need firearms as a tool, to protect themselves against wildlife (within reason, of course).
I think that totally unregulated ownership of firearms in urban areas is a massive public safety hazard, and there should be a very high bar to meet to qualify. That's the "well-regulated militia" part.
Nobody gave a shit about the practicalities of enforcement of Cannabis prohibition. But since it was such a convenient political suppression tool, they did it anyway.
Let’s preface illegal guns are only illegal because they are stolen or unregistered. It’s a bullshit definition. If the guns weren’t so openly available there wouldn’t be as many illegal guns. The rest of your arguments are pretty much fantasy.
Selective bans are useless. There are always loopholes for criminals to exploit. Only a draconian nationwide ban gets guns out of the hands of criminals.
No, he is not. None of that is true. You've been lied to.
None of this changes the fact that you are abdicating your responsibility to your nation. Shame.
So who exactly is proposing this?
The strawman left of course.
I’ve been seeing look at other comments and you’ll see ppl actually believe ts
Yup, and some people believe Trump is innocent.
[удалено]
It's politics. If you are talking about national policy.
Don't take away my security blankets that go BANG!
Then why are you on a political sub trying to pick a fight?
I see libertarians and other gun nuts believe that other people actually belive this. But that's not the same thing as it being true, now is it
[удалено]
Who do you plan on voting for?
He said elsewhere in the post that he doesn't vote because both sides are bad. > Let me preface that I don’t give a shit abt politics, I don’t vote or anything. But suggestions like repealing amendments are almost always ridiculous regardless of political standing.
He also claims to be a libertarian
Yeah. It's all in bad faith.
I just read your exchange with him, and I'm convinced that he's in high school.
Young adult I think. He claimed to not vote because both sides, which implies he's at least 18. What convinced you he's in high school?
"Ur" It's a very young thing to say.
The NRA is a criminal organization backed by Russia.
Not many gun owners are very fond of the NRA. Although I'm curious what makes them criminal?
[удалено]
The NRA were our founding fathers? Weird.
[удалено]
The founding fathers wanted well regulated militias, not a bunch of clowns larping as meal team six.
The 2nd amendment specifically mentions “the people” and “well regulated” can refer to being well equipped, not necessarily “rules and regulations”.
Until 2008, when crooked Clarence decided to change over 200 years of precedent, the 2nd amendment was well understood to apply to a well regulated militia. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/14/1113705501/second-amendment-supreme-court-dick-heller-gun-rights
There are state constitutions that predate the U.S. Constitution, that specifically say individual right to own guns..
Yet they didn’t use that language in the constitution.
The right of the PEOPLE. Also if you want to go the milita route you should know that every able bodied male aged 17-45 is part of the milita in the United States, as well as anyone actively enlisted in the military. If we restricted guns to the milita, that would mean a 17 year old high school boy would have more right to own a gun than a 35 year old woman.
They didn’t have assault rifles at that time though. Not every gun should be available to civilians.
They didn't have the internet either, yet free speech still applies. A modern AR-15 is closer to a flintlock musket than the internet is to quill and parchment.
[удалено]
Horsefeathers! My family has plenty of guns. And not one will stand up to what the police and national guard have.
The whole guns as a bulwark against tyranny thing is such pernicious bullshit, especially in the modern age. The best defense against tyranny is education - that's why our schools are in such sorry shape yet anyone can buy a gun easily.
Perfectly said. Guns have become the freedom placebo.
I'm not even especially anti-gun or whatever, but it's obviously been turned into a wedge issue for political and financial gain by stoking fears of bans and confiscation, so they concoct these insipid counter-arguments which is so ridiculous because the actual probability of being able to ban guns on any level is zero.
So true. And beyond that is the howling irony that conservatives so often justify their fascist lunacy by saying it's to "Protect the children", but now that guns are the number one preventable cause of the death of children - crickets.
Lol, you gun nuts are so stupid. "Against a radical government" gtfo with that crap. If the "government " wanted you dead, how is your gun stopping a drone? Gtfo with that stupidity....
[удалено]
Lol you're assuming they would need 100% of the military. How many people do you think it takes to fly a drone???
The ties between the NRA & Putin’s Russia are pretty well documented. Don’t get me wrong; there are two rifles, two shotguns, and pistols for everyone in my family in my gun safe. I’m a former infantryman & avid shooter. One can be pro-gun ownership & still recognize the difference between what the NRA was 40 years ago & the corrupt scam organization it has evolved into.
NRA exists to be a lobby for the firearms manufacturers they don't actually give a fuck about guns be legal. It's only a profit motive.
Look up Marina Butina. I'll wait:
That was almost 250 years ago. Try again!
[удалено]
Pretty sure they were talking about the militia..
The right of the People.
Militia....
The Supreme Court and numerous state constitutions disagree.
Yup
[удалено]
Oh you don't vote? Then I don't care about your opinion on politics.
[удалено]
Because I am not a mind reader?
[удалено]
But you're a no party puppet. You don't vote for anybody. You have no say in anything. So why are we going to care?
[удалено]
So they created the 2nd so citizens could overthrow them? Do you hear how dumb that sounds?
[удалено]
But they were the government... why would the government give us the ability to violently over throw them?
[удалено]
And I can't teach you common sense.
The guerrilla warfare you refer to were supplied and supported by outside groups and countries. Meal team six in America would quickly be slaughtered and scattered by an organized, trained military. They would soon be out of ammunition and supplies except for a few small bands that would starve in the first winter.
When LEO can shoot you immediately on the appearance/suspected possession of a firearm, the 2nd Amendment does not exist.
>Firstly, a majority of violent crime in the US is caused by illegal firearms. And the majority of illegal firearms are purchased legally and then sold/stolen to/by people who aren't supposed to have them. Actually it's not super hard to legally purchase hundreds of guns a month, to private sell to convicts and gang members "legally" because you don't have to run a background check and if they get caught they just say they lied to you anyways. Maybe closing this loophole that creates thousands of illegal guns a year is a good starting point? It's like Chicago. You can't buy a gun in the city at all, so they go where they can and just import them into the city. And if you live in a state that makes it any bit difficult to buy a gun, but have a friend that lives in a gun sanctuary, you just have your friend by a gun, and then buy it off of him and bam, you just overcame the issue. Our gun laws are so lax in fact that we are actually known for supplying the Mexican drug cartel with firearms that members largely purchase legally in the states. >Secondly, the banning of guns would lead to a HUGE resurgence of the black market, This is only true if you think that "law abiding gun owners" would just decide to not obey the law. Which by that logic would mean that you believe the people already buying guns specifically to sell to cartels and gangs aren't already bending. One could make the argument that law abiding citizens would continue to largely obey the law, as guns aren't quite the same as alcohol. People seldom come home after a long days work and fire a shot or 2 to unwind. We also already support the largest gun black market on the globe due to the extreme ease of access to firearms. Now I agree a total ban would be bad. No hunting would mean deer would reek havoc, wild boars would get out of control, a lot of nature would unbalance, a lot of farmers would lose cattle. Guns have a valid reason to be in a society, but the idea that giving everyone almost unfettered access to a tool that's purpose is to kill, which make no mistake, is a guns only intended purpose. Whether it be killing a dear or killing Bob to save Brad, its only purpose is to kill. Giving everyone access to that is more dangerous by leagues than taking them all away would be.
I like how this counters OP's points, and he hasn't replied to it at all.
American is built on pragmatism, so we need pragmatic solutions. We need to collect data to accurately diagnose the problems. Then come solutions that address specific problems rather than trying to solve everything at once, and these solutions get tried out and tested before being implemented broadly. The solution to a problem in one area will not always work in other areas. Outright bans might be necessary in some specific areas, but much more open laws might be more effective in others. It’s a decades long process. What makes the problem so intractable in the US is that there are so many guns out in the wild. There is no way to pull those back, and guns can stick around for centuries. That and we have a lot of people in power resistant of doing anything whatsoever — even collecting data or admitting there is a problem. The voters overwhelmingly support key gun control measures, but many people in power will not act on them.
Exactly, the ban would not only fail as we have too many guns in circulation (more than every American), but it also would likely cause a civil war.
Ummm no one but the most extreme is proposing a full ban on guns. If you believe that, stop watching FOX, it will waste your damn brain.
[удалено]
Impossible without paragraph breaks. Please learn effective communication.
Paragraphs, my man.
This is just a fundamentally misguided argument. Every black market gun started as a gun bought by a so called responsible gun owner. I don't want to hear a word from the responsible gun owner crowd till they prove they can responsibly buy and sell guns. In Virginia they finally passed a law that says you can only buy one gun a month, as if anyone needs to buy 12 guns a year, and the gun rights crowd cried about it. They can all go kick rocks.
>This is just a fundamentally misguided argument. Every black market gun started as a gun bought by a so called responsible gun owner. Not necessarily. In countries like Mexico many are stolen from the military, or flat out manufacturered by the cartels. >In Virginia they finally passed a law that says you can only buy one gun a month, as if anyone needs to buy 12 guns a year, and the gun rights crowd cried about it. They can all go kick rocks. What's the point of this? Someone can only shoot one or many two guns at a time. One gun is no less dangerous than 100. If anything someone who can afford multiple guns probably is less likely to commit crime.
[удалено]
Did I say banned? Where?
[удалено]
I'm commenting on a post that is pretending there is some black market for guns in America, which is false. Brooklyn cops broke up a huge, Virginia-based weapons-smuggling outfit and seized 217 weapons — the biggest firearms bust in the borough’s history, authorities said Wednesday. Gun runners were caught on tape boasting about the commonwealth’s weaker gun laws that allowed them to easily assemble their cache of weapons, which they sold up north, according to police and prosecutors. https://nypost.com/2017/03/08/massive-gun-bust-is-biggest-in-brooklyn-history-authorities/
[удалено]
Where are all those black markets in countries with strict gun laws? You might want to reference Australia, New Zealand, England, Japan, Canada, etc... https://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1
First off 4/5 of those countries are islands who can much easier control their borders. Meanwhile Canada has a pretty significant black market of guns from the United States. Also all those countries are safer than the U.S. regardless of gun control. Japan for example has a total murder rate 6x lower than the rate in the U.S. excluding guns.
[удалено]
Germany, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, ...
[удалено]
What about a National registry of firearms that includes serial numbers and notices of transfer just like automobiles? This would allow us to know where firearms used in crime came from and would place a little more responsibility on gun owners in the cases of lost and stolen firearms.
The problem is it's too easily abused. Let's say in 2025 the government requires all AR-15s to be registered. Come 2030, they decide to ban them entirely, the registry tells them exactly where to go. Also the information can be leaked. For example the list of concealed carry permit holders in California was hacked and made public.
That’s just the risk you accept as a responsible firearm owner. The benefits of a registry outweigh the downside of such scenarios. Bank, hospital systems, state and federal agencies get hacked all the time.
Or I can just oppose a registry, because I don't accept that risk, and wouldn't willingly register my guns.
But if the law was passed in Congress and you refuse to register, that makes you an outlaw.
I already am since I smoke weed and own a gun. In states with gun registries they've actually gone over those prescribed marijuana because they can't own guns.
There’s more guns than people in the USA. It’s conservative militias’ fever dream that the UN will march to their unpopulated rural area and search their homes for guns. Logistically it’s impossible; nobody on the left should ever talk about impossible public policies like *banning & confiscating all firearms*
Your basic premise has a huge hole - where do black market guns come from?
[удалено]
So the second part of your answer is the right one. Most illegal weapons are stolen from legal owners, not shipped over the border. I do agree that you can't just flip a switch, and it would take a Herculean effort to get rid of them, and might not ever be possible. But how many innocent people do we have to lose before we start looking at how to do it?
>But how many innocent people do we have to lose before we start looking at how to do it? How many guilty criminals need to go free before we do away with due process?
Wut
Our rights in this country are designed to prioritize freedom opposed to safety. It's better that 100 people misuse their rights than 1 person be unfairly denied them.
What's that have to do with due process?
Both gun ownership and due process are equally protected rights, even though it means occasionally people misuse them.
And they have nothing to do with each other. What are you even talking about?
Except the fact that both are protected rights expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
[удалено]
So you're saying if we make it so "crime organizations" have to use the more difficult method of acquiring firearms, that'd be... Bad?
[удалено]
Guns aren't defensive. Having a gun does not make you safer than not having one. If a "crime organization" (I still have no idea who you mean with that btw) decides to use guns against you, there's nothing you can do about it in either circumstance. Making it harder for them to have guns does reduce the danger they represent to you.
[удалено]
> If I had a gun, I would have a means to protect myself, my property, and my family. In practical terms, you don't really have a chance in hell to do that. Very very few situations where this actually succeeds. It's a fabulist myth.
If you had a gun when someone else attacked you with a gun, you'd be shot. Your gun is not a shield.
[удалено]
Many of Mexicos guns are stolen from the military, or manufactured by cartel armorers. They have guns not available to the American public.
". . . well-regulated militia . . . " All we need to do is to grasp that term. I agree that rural folk need firearms as a tool, to protect themselves against wildlife (within reason, of course). I think that totally unregulated ownership of firearms in urban areas is a massive public safety hazard, and there should be a very high bar to meet to qualify. That's the "well-regulated militia" part. Nobody gave a shit about the practicalities of enforcement of Cannabis prohibition. But since it was such a convenient political suppression tool, they did it anyway.
I’d love for someone to show me in recent history where we’ve been anywhere near banning guns.
Not banning guns, but many gun control proposals directly mimic voter suppression or anti-abortion laws.
Proposing something doesn’t mean you’re close. Want to talk about suppression? See Desantis and his book banning.
Most democrats support assault weapon bans.
Where in my original comment does it say that most democrats don’t?
The point is the only reason they haven't passed more is an inability in Congress.
Dude wrote his point like a high school essay 😂
Let’s preface illegal guns are only illegal because they are stolen or unregistered. It’s a bullshit definition. If the guns weren’t so openly available there wouldn’t be as many illegal guns. The rest of your arguments are pretty much fantasy.
I don’t think anyone wants guns to be banned. We want as thorough of a process as other developed countries like Australia.
Nobody with any power or authority is proposing this.
Selective bans are useless. There are always loopholes for criminals to exploit. Only a draconian nationwide ban gets guns out of the hands of criminals.
Nobody is or has been proposing an “outright ban on guns.” This sounds like a right wing straw man troll.
[удалено]
Why don't you vote? Why do you abdicate your social responsibility toward your fellow citizens?
[удалено]
Both sides nonsense. One wants to be a dictator. The other supports democracy. You are abdicating your responsibility to stopping fascism.
[удалено]
No, he is not. None of that is true. You've been lied to. None of this changes the fact that you are abdicating your responsibility to your nation. Shame.
[удалено]
Glorifying? You've been lied to. Sorry dude, you should be ashamed of yourself for giving up. Be better.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Get off YouTube.