Do you support the second amendment?

[Wesrock]

Just got to drive down to the local Walmart.

 

[Jamie5]

[No message]

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t like the options for the question. I support the second amendment, but I also think we need substantially more gun control.

We desperately need to make semi autos and handguns harder to buy; maybe impossible to buy on the spur-of-the-moment. And this is coming from a guy that owns a few of both.

Also, adopt an Aussie policy where folks can surrender firearms to the gov for a low but quick payment. As most crime is committed by poor folks and all poor folks eventually REALLY need the easy, fast money, we’ll clean up a lot of the loose firearms in time. That does translate into lives saved.

 

[thephilosopher6]

If you actually think that, then you don’t support the second amendment.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you actually think that, then you don’t support the second amendment.

Thoughtless reply…

Your right to bear arms is technically “infringed” because you can’t own a nuclear weapon. Would you like to see that policy thoughtlessly reversed as well?

 

[thephilosopher6]

The founding fathers wanted us to have and bear arms. Yes, they didn’t want us to have super ridiculous weapons, and you sure are right about that. Semi-automatics weapons and handguns are not that. Do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon is? When you take away semi-autos, you might as well take away shot guns and pistols.

You are not a second amendment supporter, so stop pretending that you are. This is why I didn’t make another option, because it would only be deceptive.

 

[Jamie5]

[No message]

 

[Vonsalza]

The founding fathers wanted us to have and bear arms. Yes, they didn’t want us to have super ridiculous weapons, and you sure are right about that. Semi-automatics weapons and handguns are not that.

We disagree.

Do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon is?

Yup. I own an AK clone, and AR and a mini-14.

When you take away semi-autos, you might as well take away shot guns and pistols.

A random vector’s ability to rapidly kill a large number of people is limited with bolt-actions and shotguns. Bolts are too slow and shottys have limited ammo capacity and range.

You are not a second amendment supporter, so stop pretending that you are. This is why I didn’t make another option, because it would only be deceptive.

Thoughtlessly wrong. I’m just not what YOU think a 2nd amendment supporter would be.
Obviously you believe in some degree of limitation - a la nuclear weapons. We just disagree on where that line is to be drawn.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I agree and that’s one reason to have #2A.

 

[Joe_5859]

But making it harder for for lunatics to get a hold of these weapons that can kill dozens in a matter of minutes seems like a reasonable goal. I don’t understand why we can’t work together to make that a reality, so tragedies like Vegas and Sandy Hook stop becoming common place here. No other first world country has a gun violence problem to the same extent that the United States does. That tells me we are doing something wrong.

Indeed. I am somewhat conflicted, and I recognize that the issue is complicated. But we need to at least be able to discuss it without shouting each other down. I don’t understand why people gravitate so quickly and easily to all-or-nothing talking points as though the only two options are no gun regulations and a total ban on all guns.

Personally, I am not a fan of guns, but I am also greatly sympathetic to constitutional freedoms. I understand that my experiences as a largely suburban dweller impacts my perception. Those in rural settings who use guns to keep away coyotes or other such things will have a different perspective.

While I don’t think immediately after a tragedy is the best time to make a decision about gun issues (for fear of reacting emotively without due reflection), I think it is definitely a good time to have a discussion about gun issues. We need to stop insulting each other. If you think someone is wrong, educate them, don’t insult them. That is how compromise can happen.

I think we should all agree that tragedies like what happened in Las Vegas are terrible. And we owe it to ourselves as a nation to be willing to discuss how to avoid such tragedies. Now, I’m not inclined to think the answer is a simple one. If a disturbed individual is determined enough, he can find a way. But that doesn’t mean we don’t seek to minimize his opportunities and reduce his capacity for carnage.

Now, what such policies would look like in practice, I don’t pretend to know. But I would encourage all of us to really stop and question the validity of “easy answers” that get tossed back and forth when these tragedies occur. Saying that, “Well, a psycho will find a way to obtain guns, so why bother trying to stop him?” is not a good answer. Saying that we need to ban all guns besides single shot muskets is not a good answer.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That’s the #1 problem. Most people who talk about this have no clue what they are talking about.

Knowledge doesn’t matter. Only virtue-signaling and having the cool opinion + tragedy does.

Did you see Clinton’s tweet about silencers?

Awful, man. Just awful.

 

[thephilosopher6]

No, you clearly don’t support the second amendment. Many everyday pistols are semi-automatic. Should we take them away too? How do you have the gall to call yourself a gun owner, yet not support the second amendment? Please watch this:

 

[Vonsalza]

No, you clearly don’t support the second amendment. Many everyday pistols are semi-automatic. Should we take them away too? How do you have the gall to call yourself a gun owner, yet not support the second amendment? Please watch this:

I do support the second amendment, and FYI, nearly every pistol being made today is semi auto. Revolvers and singles stopped being popular in the Reagan admin.

As I said earlier, you yourself support some “infringement” on the right to bear arms since you agree we shouldn’t individually own nukes. We just disagree on where the line of acceptable “infringement” is to be drawn.

And stop calling everyone who disagrees with your “status quo” gun-rhetoric a foe of the 2nd amendment. It’s boring and tired.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Yes! I said that! Most everyday pistols are semi-auto! So should we take them away too!? No! They are an integral part of our freedom. Yet you want to have them taken away, it’s the simple truth. I will not have my rights infringed because of you people. And please watch the video I posted above.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The nukes argument is a strawman.

1. NONE of the American citizens want the hassle.
2. It’s perhaps more dangerous for them to have one than not have one, especially in the current culture. The whole idea behind #2A is to keep yourself, your family, your property and even your neighborhood SAFE. Having all of these advanced weapons designed for military use against foreign aggressors as an absolute last resort goes against how we understand the spirit of the #2A today.

When people decide to buy weapons, there is always a risk-assessment involved in the decision-making process.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes! I said that! Most everyday pistols are semi-auto! So should we take them away too!? No! They are an integral part of our freedom. Yet you want to have them taken away, it’s the simple truth. I will not have my rights infringed because of you people. And please watch the video I posted above.

Stop your fear mongering.

I don’t want them “taken away”. I want them to be harder to buy. And maybe impossible to buy instantly (this means waiting periods, if you couldn’t tell.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Ban motor vehicles.

Actually thanks for proving my point. We don’t sit back and say oh well people die in car crashes, nothing we can do about that. We try to make them safer. We require seat belts and air bags. We at least try to do something. But when it comes to the gun worshiper’s beloved arsenal of guns, oh no. Can’t do anything about guns.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Harder to buy?

What if a woman gets into a domestic abuse situation and knows her drunk, crazy ex is coming back for the kids—or even worse to kill her and the kids the next day?

Think that making it harder for her to buy a weapon is the solution?

 

[Vonsalza]

The nukes argument is a strawman.

No it isn’t. It’s an unambiguous infringement. Another example is the ban on full-autos.

I’m sure there are morons out there who think those should be legalized too.

So we implicitly agree that there should be some limitation. We just disagree where that sword falls.

 

[Vonsalza]

Harder to buy?

What if a woman gets into a domestic abuse situation and knows her drunk, crazy ex is coming back for the kids—or even worse to kill her and the kids the next day?

Think that making it harder for her to buy a weapon is the solution?

If a woman is in that situation and premeditates buying a gun for a likely altercation and takes no action to avoid the conflict outright, that woman will be going to jail, most likely.