What is the end goal for the left on the 2nd?

a reply to: chr0naut

It is framed around defense against tyrannical government (that was why they mentioned militia in the 2nd), which is not the reason that millions of Americans use for having their guns.

For a fairly smart individual you are so wrong its not even funny.

you read but do not comprehend.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

It is framed to keep the government (and their stooges) hands off of them.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people who want to legislate against guns do not do so to have them in their own posession. They have no intention to take them into their own hands.

Besides, do you think that a band of armed citizens could stand against modern highly armed and armoured defense forces?

a reply to: chr0naut

The people who want to legislate against guns do not do so to have them in their own posession. They have no intention to take them into their own hands.

Who will take them then?
Where will they go?
Who will then still have them?

Besides, do you think that a band of armed citizens could stand against modern highly armed and armoured defense forces?

Afghanistan aside, if this is your logic, then you should have zero problems with Americans having their firearms.

Sometimes I think people just like talking about things and details just to say look what I know just to say stuff. Blah blah blah. They take your sh!t because they can when they can when you give them permission to do it. Period. The end.

Now if I post a bunch 6 more paragraphs of unnecessary details can I get everyone to double star my reply? Make me feel part of the I know something you don't club?

originally posted by: chr0naut


Besides, do you think that a band of armed citizens could stand against modern highly armed and armoured defense forces?

the Taliban called and left you a message. The message is as follows and I quote:



"Bwahahahahahahahahhhahahaha!!!"

a reply to: network dude

I honestly don't see any issue with those proposals.

I'm on the left, more so middle of the aisle but I enjoy my firearms.

The way I see it is if I need a license and training to drive a car, the same should be said for firearms. They're complicated mechanisms/tools and should be treated as such. I took a friend to the range who is very MAGA who just got himself a few pew pews and I'm a member at a private range, he transported them illegally, didn't know how to load the weapons or operate them and could not remember range rules worth a damn, I tried teaching, but wont be taking him again.

No issue with waiting a few days for a gun I want, no issue taking a class to learn about something new, no issue needing to get a conceal carry license. Like, these aren't hard things to make happen and would certainly make me feel more comfortable when I do go to the public ranges.

I have no problem with the right to every person to have a firearm, but for christ's sake there needs to be some minimum amount of training before you walk away with a firearm from a store.

Now, I wish that same tact could be taken to NFA items, that $200 tax stamp really makes me spending more money hard. I'd rather it be, take a class, learn about the devices, now you can purchase them type system.

originally posted by: network dude
The things mentioned here, aren't totally horrific, but as everyone knows, if you give an inch, they will take a mile. But why is the push always against legal gun owners? Do democrats not have ability to look at facts and statistics?

So as I saw your post, about an hour ago I was reading about the 15 worst states to live in and I think NM was no 2 due to the high crime, lack of jobs, border problems, and large percentage of the population being poor.

What a great place to fight the 2nd and take guns out of the hands of law-bidding citizens...lol

I just do not understand the liberal logic.

originally posted by: mechtech87

I have no problem with the right to every person to have a firearm, but for christ's sake there needs to be some minimum amount of training before you walk away with a firearm from a store.

The problem is that to bear arms is not a privilege as driving is. There is a level of personal responsibility that a person should take on to ensure they know how to use a tool they buy, such as a gun. What do you think is the percentage of people with guns like your friend anyway? I bet it is extremely small, like well below 1%. Then you have a few million gang members that I don't think about taking a safety class..lol

One of the important parts of the 2nd is there are a lot of people who do not want the government to know they have guns, how many, how much ammo, etc. So these seamlessly added levels of safety like waiting time, safety classes, etc is a way to record what you have so that when they come to take your guns if you do not give them up then you are arrested.

Is this even still a question?

Forty percent of Democrats admitted to pollsters they want to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment

And that's 6 years ago. And that's considering there are Democrats who are savvy enough not to admit that to a pollster.

Their end goal is that you are completely unarmed and unable to defend yourself and your family.

The fathers of our nation were very clear about our rights to own firearms and our right to self defense.
There will be no compromise, you will not take them.

If you try, you will be shot.






Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
I just want to go back to a country where my kids don't have active shooter drills at school. Make America Great Again?

We didn't have school shootings prior to 1990, before they made "Gun Free School Zones" thus creating nothing but defenseless children.

Remember that? Pepperidge Farm Remembers. Seniors and Juniors would literally bring their guns to school in their cars for hunting before and after school and were fine as long as the principal/teachers were notified.

We taught firearm safety and hunter safety in schools.

Then everything was stripped, demonized, and made astronomically worse. It's almost like the Government did what they always do - created a problem so that they could come in and offer a "solution" that is 10,000x worse than anything was to begin with. Weird how that worked.....

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Good you like stats, keep digging and you will see the breakdown of those shootings and realize the vast amount of gun deaths are suicide, then another good chunk are justified cop shootings, then gang shootings, last bit is school shootings.

And suicides by gun aren't gun deaths or aren't a societal problem?

Last bit ill toss in is an oldy but a goody, a large chunk of all of it occurs in some areas that have laws you would love.

Huge chunks of the US have a huge gun presence and NO SHOOTINGS, but yea the guns are the problem.

Yeah, apparently places with almost no population, but with all those few people armed, have lower numbers of total gun deaths.

But I wonder if you calculate the percentages of gun deaths related to number of guns owned, if it would be vastly different in ratio?

Gun Ownership by State 2024

Firearm Mortality by State

And, in regard to the often quoted town where gun ownership is allegedly mandatory:

Mandatory Gun Ownership in Kennesaw, Georgia

Here's some other info on gun myths:

Debunking Gun Myths at the Dinner Table

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The people who want to legislate against guns do not do so to have them in their own posession. They have no intention to take them into their own hands.

Who will take them then?
Where will they go?
Who will then still have them?

In Australia and New Zealand, confiscated firearms were destroyed, the steel added to Bessemer Converters in steelworks.

Besides, do you think that a band of armed citizens could stand against modern highly armed and armoured defense forces?

Afghanistan aside, if this is your logic, then you should have zero problems with Americans having their firearms.

In Afganistan, the indiginous forces are armed with more than guns. The majority of attacks against foreign forces in the modern era have been by IED's.

a reply to: chr0naut

Suicides are a mental health problem, that 100% needs to be addressed in a very bad way, but both parties have decided to ignore it.

But instead of addressing the actual problem (mental health) you like the idiots in congress would rather go Ugh.. Guns... band da guns.

Leaving people suffering from mental health problems, many turning to illegal drugs often still ending up dead just from a different delivery system, how very progressive of you.

Considering people use crime as the reason to ban guns, and people still want to use suicide, and legal police usage in the statistics shows the disingenuous nature of the argument and why so many people say this is non-negotiable, because as soon as you let congress legislate 1 right away the rest will be gone as fast as politically able.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

Besides, do you think that a band of armed citizens could stand against modern highly armed and armoured defense forces?

the Taliban called and left you a message. The message is as follows and I quote:

"Bwahahahahahahahahhhahahaha!!!"

List of military equipment used by mujahideen during Soviet–Afghan War

Of course, after the Russians left, the Taliban aquired leftover Russian millitary equipment, too.

... and prior to the American withdrawal, US forces had defeated most of the Taliban fighters.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Suicides are a mental health problem, that 100% needs to be addressed in a very bad way, but both parties have decided to ignore it.

'Both' parties? Like there's only two?

I live in another country where mental health was given priority by the previous (center left) government. The new (center right) government here has sadly cut that budgetary funding for mental health services, as we are having somewhat of an economic crisis at the moment. But I'm fairly sure that there would be no justification for discontinuing the policy otherwise.

But instead of addressing the actual problem (mental health) you like the idiots in congress would rather go Ugh.. Guns... band da guns.

Also in New Zealand we had one of those mass shooting incidents (that happen every seond week in the US, but have rarely happened here), and our government (and all parties unanimously agreed) took immediate actions to beef up our gun control laws, to prevent such happening again. It was quite separate from our mental health initiatives (which were already in place).

Leaving people suffering from mental health problems, many turning to illegal drugs often still ending up dead just from a different delivery system, how very progressive of you.

So, you blame me for he fact that your government refuses to take reasonable care of its constituents, and somehow that justfies Americans to arm the insane and the criminal?

Considering people use crime as the reason to ban guns, and people still want to use suicide, and legal police usage in the statistics shows the disingenuous nature of the argument and why so many people say this is non-negotiable, because as soon as you let congress legislate 1 right away the rest will be gone as fast as politically able.

I am using suicides by firearm as a reason to ban guns.

People who make a bad decision in the moment and suvive suicide attempts usually mention that if they had had time to reconsider, they might not have attempted suicide.

But guns are quick and quite deadly at close range. And those who survive suicide attempt by firearm probably never anticipated that they might have to live the rest of their lives with part of their face blown away.

I think that paranoia, and believing that everyone should carry a deadly weapon to makes themselves safer, indicates an unbalanced mental state, in light of the suicide statistics alone.