An honest perspective about gun control from a former anti-2nd amendment citizen

Thanks for the list of laws, just wanted to see what you had in mind for the discussion. The sawed off shotgun law always disappointed me the most. I've got a house with no room bigger than 15x15. A sawed off with some level of choke would be ideal for home defense.

Nothing would make me happier than a legalization of drugs. I think Portugal's decriminalization has gone swimmingly well. And if I could have a joint in my pocket at all times I'd be a happy man. Or at least one rip away.

In my opinion doing away with money spent on overseas military and drug enforcement in the states would leave us a lot to spend on things like smaller classroom sizes, mental health and other hippy dippy type things that could greatly improve the country we all live.

Sounds like we should be in charge. End the NFA, drug prohibition, and overseas meddling. More teachers. More schooling locations. More infrastructure spending. Love it.
 
Why did TS ignore the recent Vegas shooting? Doesn't fit his argument I suppose.

He also doesn't seem to understand the concept of "trends."
 
Just saying that a Crowder video is not evidence of the contrary either. I haven't looked at the evidence in favor of, to be honest. But Crowder is extremely biased and dishonest.

I fact check his stuff becomes sometimes he words things incorrectly
 
Don't get what you're saying.
I realize. Whether the amendment is repealed is immaterial. That's why they used the phrase "The right" ... It exists whether or not the government recognizes it or codifies it on paper.
 
Switzerland is one of the few countries that I'm aware of that has any thing close to the number of guns that we do. Also, again, my love of the 2nd is from an anti military, anti strong central government point of view. Switzerland is again a good example, militarily, of what I'm talking about.

The two biggest differences I see between them and us, is they view guns more from a sense of civil duty and they also limit quantities of bullets sitting around in civilian houses.

Concessions are the name of the game. If there is a monstrous gun control debate in our country right now and I start arguing to the opposing side that we need more and better guns I'm not gonna make much headway with my argument. Where's my concession? The bullets.

That just reads more like you can't make a convincing argument to defend your most foundational right. ... an area of opportunity for you then?
 
That just reads more like you can't make a convincing argument to defend your most foundational right. ... an area of opportunity for you then?

Good luck convincing everyone of all the things you believe. My opinions don't reign supreme in my world. In fact I'd say most people look at me like I'm a nut with my preference for military grade weapons for every household.

If I was on the other side of the argument I'd be talking about the number of guns leading to the number of murders etc etc. Switzerland is a country that I think does the things I like regarding firearms 85% right and they achieve the violence statistics that the gun opposition seeks 85% right. Seems like a pretty fuckin good starting point to me.

Or I'm just inept at putting together a convincing argument. Your choice.

PS my most foundational right in regards to the government is the freedom to think and present my ideas freely. A gun to shoot the dude robbing my house doesn't protect that. Convincing society that we can safely integrate more powerful weapons to keep the power in the hands of citizens instead of the government does.
 
That's not even kind of a rebuttal.

Let me know if you think I am wrong but in the absence of any reason to think otherwise I assume you agree.
There will be massive civil disobedience and non-compliance, then what, the door-to-door confiscation that your ilk assure would never happen?
 
There will be massive civil disobedience and non-compliance, then what, the door-to-door confiscation that your ilk assure would never happen?

So if trump gets the bump stock laws through you expect massive civil disobedience?

Define massive.
 
So if trump gets the bump stock laws through you expect massive civil disobedience?

Define massive.
No, you dolt, no one gives a shit about bump-fire stocks. On the other hand, if that's all that takes to end your crusade, you can keep them and I'll keep the rest of an AR-15, how's that for compromise?

As for "massive", well when Canada tried total firearms registration in the late 90's, compliance was generously estimated at 50%. If half of the polite Canadian gun owners didn't comply, I can't imagine Americans being anywhere near as compliant. When they stopped registering non-restricted firearms, like most rifles and shotguns, it was like zombie gun day; all those never-been-registered firearms started literally rising from the ground.
 
No, you dolt, no one gives a shit about bump-fire stocks. On the other hand, if that's all that takes to end your crusade, you can keep them and I'll keep the rest of an AR-15, how's that for compromise?

As for "massive", well when Canada tried total firearms registration in the late 90's, compliance was generously estimated at 50%. If half of the polite Canadian gun owners didn't comply, I can't imagine Americans being anywhere near as compliant. When they stopped registering non-restricted firearms, like most rifles and shotguns, it was like zombie gun day; all those never-been-registered firearms started literally rising from the ground.

No deal but luckily I am not in the business of passing laws or constitutional amendments.

I am asking for thoughts on the very clear precedent that the vague wording of the 2nd has not prevented infringement.

Further your thought process on infringement being ok tells me poular infringement is fine.
 
How much would that cost anyhow?

{<huh}

Why though?

If you care about consistency at all, and your argument is that a person isn't responsible enough to own a firearm until 21, they certainly aren't responsible enough to drive or elect the leader of the free world until that age either. You also can't tell people they can't own guns until their 21 and allow 17 and 18 year olds to join the Infantry. That's hypocrisy.

Secondly, since the argument is allegedly about caring about saving lives, WWAAAYY more people die via automobile accident every year in the US than by firearms. There were over 40k automobile related deaths over both of the last two years, in large part do to texting and driving. Maybe we should add owning a cell phone to the list of things you can't do until you're 21? If you include suicides, which makes up well over half of the number of firearms related deaths per year, there are about 38k a year. Exclude suicides and it falls to 15k. That's including accidents. So "just" murder makes up a shockingly low amount of firearms related death in the US, not even counting mass shootings, with those numbers so skewed it's embarrasing.
 
If you care about consistency at all, and your argument is that a person isn't responsible enough to own a firearm until 21, they certainly aren't responsible enough to drive or elect the leader of the free world until that age either. You also can't tell people they can't own guns until their 21 and allow 17 and 18 year olds to join the Infantry. That's hypocrisy.
There's merit to the argument about the age of enlistment but not in the case of voting. A single voter can not do the damage that a single person with a gun can and I don't think just because we restrict gun ownership that necessarily means we have to restrict voting.

That said, I'm not sure I even buy the argument about enlisting. When you join the military, you're not given a gun and thrown onto the battlefield but subjected to intense training and integrated into a chain of command. I don't think its analogous to an 18 year old purchasing a gun on his own where there would be no comparable training or command structure to reduce irresponsible behavior.

That said I wouldn't be opposed to increasing the age of enlistment either.
Secondly, since the argument is allegedly about caring about saving lives, WWAAAYY more people die via automobile accident every year in the US than by firearms. There were over 40k automobile related deaths over both of the last two years, in large part do to texting and driving. Maybe we should add owning a cell phone to the list of things you can't do until you're 21? If you include suicides, which makes up well over half of the number of firearms related deaths per year, there are about 38k a year. Exclude suicides and it falls to 15k. That's including accidents. So "just" murder makes up a shockingly low amount of firearms related death in the US, not even counting mass shootings, with those numbers so skewed it's embarrasing.
Why would you exclude suicides though? 40k Is not way more than 38k. Though I'm okay with raising the age threshold for driving for similar reasons I might support it for guns I'd also point out that the average young American at the age of 18-20 probably has far more use of a vehicle than a firearm so there's more of a benefit to the cost IMO.

All that said I don't think raising the age limit for guns is the solution we should really be focusing. Its talked about now because the latest high profile perpetrator was under 21 but there have been enough over 21 to suggest to me this law isn't dealing with the problem at its root.
 
There's merit to the argument about the age of enlistment but not in the case of voting. A single voter can not do the damage that a single person with a gun can and I don't think just because we restrict gun ownership that necessarily means we have to restrict voting.

I'm just talking about from a consistency perspective. If you aren't responsible enough to own an inanimate object, you aren't responsible enough for voting. Those two just aren't the same.

That said, I'm not sure I even buy the argument about enlisting. When you join the military, you're not given a gun and thrown onto the battlefield but subjected to intense training and integrated into a chain of command. I don't think its analogous to an 18 year old purchasing a gun on his own where there would be no comparable training or command structure to reduce irresponsible behavior.

It's hypocritical to say that you can use a gun in service of the State at one age, but can own one yourself until this age just because. Tons of people where more responsible at 18 than many of the 21-22 year old Marines I served with who has multiple combat tours under their belts.

That said I wouldn't be opposed to increasing the age of enlistment either.

Why would you exclude suicides though? 40k Is not way more than 38k. Though I'm okay with raising the age threshold for driving for similar reasons I might support it for guns I'd also point out that the average young American at the age of 18-20 probably has far more use of a vehicle than a firearm so there's more of a benefit to the cost IMO.

Because that number is represented in almost every scenario as the number of homicides. That isn't true. And you're right, I should have said "WWAAY more people are killed in car accidents than murdered by guns". Even with that though, a sucide and a violent act against another person are far from the same thing.

All that said I don't think raising the age limit for guns is the solution we should really be focusing. Its talked about now because the latest high profile perpetrator was under 21 but there have been enough over 21 to suggest to me this law isn't dealing with the problem at its root.

This kid in Maryland was 17. Nobody is talking about him because he didn't use an "assault rifle" he would have broken the proposed new age limit law and was killed when the School resource officer responded. It also isn't high profile because there aren't enough bodies.
 
I stopped supporting the NRA as a dues-paying member when it became clear to me that the organization’s platform is no longer about gun safety but about fighting to allow individuals to have the biggest gun/s he or she can afford (or obtain by whatever means). FUCKING GREED! FUCK THE NRA!
 
I'm just talking about from a consistency perspective. If you aren't responsible enough to own an inanimate object, you aren't responsible enough for voting. Those two just aren't the same.
I don't really care about consistency here though and I don't see why the age threshold for one should be the same as for the other.
It's hypocritical to say that you can use a gun in service of the State at one age, but can own one yourself until this age just because. Tons of people where more responsible at 18 than many of the 21-22 year old Marines I served with who has multiple combat tours under their belts.

That said I wouldn't be opposed to increasing the age of enlistment either.
I don't think it is hypocritical because as I mentioned earlier when you use a firearm for the state its done after intense training and once you're part of a chain of command so its not an analogous situation.

You're the soldier here so answer me this, are you given free reign with the firearm issued to you in the military? Can you take it back to your house or off the base(in the US) without permission? Serious questions here since I always imagined you didn't have that kind of liberty and that there were controls put on the equipment but I wouldn't know really.
Because that number is represented in almost every scenario as the number of homicides. That isn't true. And you're right, I should have said "WWAAY more people are killed in car accidents than murdered by guns". Even with that though, a sucide and a violent act against another person are far from the same thing.
I've never seen that number represented as gun homicides, only as gun deaths. Now, you might argue that its misleadingly represented in the context of discussion about gun homicides and the omission of the context(that 2/3rds are suicides) is disingenuous.

Also, its true that violence and suicides are different issues but I don't agree with those who want to discount suicides as if they don't count or matter in discussions of policy. If anything given the fact that most gun deaths are suicides the suicides should be driving gun policy, not rare school shootings. Waiting periods are often suggested as one way to reduce gun suicides since it would prevent someone who doesn't own a firearm from obtaining one for the purpose of suicide on a whim.
This kid in Maryland was 17. Nobody is talking about him because he didn't use an "assault rifle" he would have broken the proposed new age limit law and was killed when the School resource officer responded. It also isn't high profile because there aren't enough bodies.
Yeah people over-analyze individual shootings looking for some silver bullet law that would've prevented the most recent high profile tragedy. But the problem is all these situations are highly unique and these silver bullet laws are overly specific and seem to fail to address whatever it is is at the root of this strange issue and so often we find the next high profile shootings are such that they wouldn't have been prevented by the previous law suggested.

Like if bump stocks were already banned what fucking difference would that have made in Parkland or Maryland? None as far as I can tell but it would've been celebrated as a victory for "common sense" gun laws.
 
Back
Top