Please, a) give me a source for that, and b) tell me why that changes the point.
You seriously think mass shootings happen every single day of the week? Why the hell would I need a source contradict such a and insane statement? The problem these days is that a “mass shooting” is not some unprovoked crime by a nut job shooting up a school. It’s two or more people. That also includes gangland shootings between gangs. Current gun laws already completely restrict them from owning guns as criminals so I see no point in even discussing that.
One of the articles about the Maine shooter the other day claimed there had been 500 and something so far in 2023. That’s almost 2x per day.
That’s beyond stupid. You actually believe that? When you think mass shootings do you think sla nut job going into a school to kill people, or a drive by? Because that high figure is absolutely conflating the two.
Delete your account and fuck off back to reddit.
It sounds like all you want is an echo chamber. Plenty of those on Reddit. I haven’t been there in 8 years.
You seriously don’t think there’s too much gun crime in the US? You seriously think that every person involved in every gang shooting has a prior record?
Sure, I’ll concede that there isn’t a mass shooting every single day of every week every year. Congrats you win. But if you think there’s nothing wrong with our current gun laws when we have the highest rates of gun crime, and if you think that even the occasional mass shooting involving little kids is just “the cost of keeping our rights” then frankly I see no further point in engaging with you. And don’t for a second think that means you’ve won, it means you’ve already lost to the propaganda machine and have accepted loss of life as the cost of doing business. I’m not well trained enough to deprogram you.
What the fuck gun laws do you make to keep CRIMINALS who are not allowed to own or purchase guns from doing so? Any new gun law will have no affect on the criminals. Only those trying to defend themselves legally.
Not all gun crime is committed by previously convicted CRIMINALS. Do you think a high schooler getting ahold of dad’s gun and shooting up their school has been previously convicted?? Mental health issues for sure but an existing CRIMINAL record is doubtful.
And the whole good guys with gun stuff is absolute bullshit. Fat lot of good it does when the “good guys” wait outside while a shooting takes place because they’re too scared for their own lives to put their “good guy” guns to good use. So I guess your feelings must basically be fuck the victims then? Would you like to blame the victims while you’re at it? They picked a bad day to show up to class, should’ve stayed home right?
Get your head out of your ass and your ass out of the sand. This definitely isn’t some clear cut easy issue, but if you ask me the answer to world record levels of gun crime isn’t to sit back and do nothing because it might take a gun away from some theoretical, law abiding good guy.
And mind you, I am a law abiding gun owner. I’ve done sport shooting and a little hunting since I was old enough to take hunters safety. And guess what. I didn’t have to do a damn thing for my gun. No application, no permit, no mental health evaluation, no background check… I literally don’t have a driver’s license because that is more difficult to obtain than a fucking gun! If that’s not fubar to you then IMHO you’re hopeless. Sorry to be that way but idk how you even get so deep up inside the NRA’s asshole and I’m definitely not diving in to get you.
I believe in the second amendment and I know there are responsible gun owners out there. That does not automatically mean that people should die just so that I and others like me don’t have to go through some fucking paperwork to obtain something designed to kill.
A significant number of guns used in crimes are stolen from legal gun-owners. With legal guns less prevalent, the people you refer to would have less access to them as well. You could require better care in storage of guns, so that they can’t be stolen as easily. You could increase funding for combating illegal gun trafficking. I’m not saying these are good solutions to the issue, but there are a lot of things one could do through the law to help keep guns away from criminals.
They also can’t be stolen if they’re carried around by the owner and used to kill the person threatening people’s lives. Not enough finding out these days. Too many gang members expecting to just get a slap on the wrist. If they start dropping like flies we would hopefully see less gang members fucking around.
There is so much data from decades of crime research that shows that is not how crime prevention works.
You see no point in discussing that when there’s steps that can be taken to control the flow of guns to criminals? And you see no reason to discuss every other mass shooting?
If the steps involve removing fundamental rights from me and other US citizens than there is no conversation to be had. The answer is no.
if they remove your fundamental rights, you know, just shoot 'em up
In case you didn’t know, that was one of the original intents of the second amendment. The ability to fight against a government that has become tyrannical.
Ah right, so explain how a group of even 50 well trained individuals, (no military careers among them, because that’s the point) is going to stop the US Military in the mountains of Appalachia? Between satellite feeds, drones, missile, artillery batteries, and armored vehicles like the MRAP, what exactly is an armed insurrection going to do? I would remind you that, over 100 years ago the us military was already good enough to win a war where nearly half the US went to war with itself, as a second military, and lost. They were, more or less, equally armed as their opponents in terms of weapons (each individual engagement was decided by skill and numbers, not by what weapons they used) and the south were blockaded into surrender. With the reunification, and 100+ years since it has only gotten stronger, to say nothing of the entrance of the Atomic and Digital Ages.
If the us government wants to stomp on the US people by force, it’s had the capability for over 70 years now. Since that time a re-examination should have happened to either reaffirm the laws and ammendments set forth, or altered them. You can’t reasonably say “then the military should not have X” because that puts the country at a disadvantage on a world stage.
These ammendments were written when it took 30 seconds or more to reload a black powder cartridge. These ammendments were written when you couldn’t send an object into orbit and hang there to watch other humans. It was written when slavery was codified and the norm. Since this document was written we have passed a dozen ammendments to it. Theres not “no way to change the second ammendment” there’s only people willing to allow it to be changed. Nowadays we don’t have issues with feeding colonies, or how to reach a gold rush in them-there moun’ns. We live in a time where more people live in new york city than the founding fathers wrote the document to rule over as a country.
The second ammendment, among the others, is outdated for a different time. It was written to prevent something that, quite frankly, isn’t an issue these days. At the time yeah it was all the rage to have yourself an Independance War because the governing country was oppressive. As was made apparent during the Civil War, and is true now - the average citizens uprising to overthrow the government for any reason won’t happen without military support anyway. And that means military hardware. You only get military hardware from defectors or thieves, neither of which are going to fight a us army base like it’s GTA to get ahold of it.
You bring up an interesting point about the Civil War and I want to ask before making a conclusion. Have there been times when the people “fighting against tyranny” were people that weren’t backwards? (i.e. Wanted to keep slavery, Jan. 6 insurrectionists, etc.)
I mean the American Revolution was a bunch of rich guys that didn’t want to pay their share of taxes?
It has happened https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/
I suppose the answer would largely be No. Not because they’re “backwards” but because the scenario 2a is alleging is that the government is unpopular and brutal, and deposing it is actually the popular public sentiment, but the government stays in power because of the “army” (as a whole combined navy/army because that’s what they had at the time)
A 2a argument would be like saying the current state of china exists because the average citizen doesn’t have a firearm.
Tl:Dr
the average citizens uprising to overthrow the government for any reason won’t happen without military support anyway.
This is the part that kills me. All these 2a goons going on about fighting tyrants are out of their minds.
Any ‘militia’ group like this is just going to get blown to bits by unmanned drones if it comes down to it.
Hypothetically speaking, the real path to resistance would be individuals figuring out ways to assassinate oligarchs and high ranking officials, and having enough success to instill fear in the rest of them.
That alone doesn’t work because even well-meaning people will use the power of the position for their own benefit eventually. We have tried slaying the leaders for centuries, we need to go to the root and eliminate the reigns by which they hold power, but it can at times be a pragmatic act of self defense still.
lolololol you guys vs F32s
lol tell that to vietnam. And Afghanistan.
I mean, Afghans/Vietnamese vs F32s, versus you guys vs. F32s lololololollololol
What does well regulated militia mean?
What does “the right of the people” mean? Because the militia (every able bodied man in the nation) should be kept well armed, we ensured the right of the people (everyone) to keep and bear arms.
Rights are made up. If we say you don’t have “the right” to own particular weapons in particular cases, then you don’t.
