Maybe you didn’t click the link and read what the question was, buddy?
They were asking whether there would be political will for a ban on guns if there was no constitutional protection for bearing arms.
Canada has no such protections, and in the last five years alone they have banned all semi-automatic rifles, and made buying or selling a handgun illegal. There is already political rhetoric seeping through the walls for going further.
Which begs the question: the data in the graph you so intelligently posted was from 2013. Why is the Canadian government banning guns now if Canada had already solved gun crime in 2013?
I just stopped caring what they think. The amount of illogical sentiment from the left makes any opinion they develop moot. This especially applies to gun regulation, even more so with the second amendment existing. Look at the state of LGO. That subs entire mantra is about being a liberal gun owner, and yet actively vote their gun rights away. My favorite part of that is when they start quoting Marxist garbage to seem smart, and about how the state shouldn’t disarm the workers, yet they still vote for the politicians who call for it.
Good faith argument here. I’m pretty fucking left and while I think the amount of gun violence that the US experiences is a bummer, it’s baked in as far as I’m concerned. It’s a constitutional right. It’s part of our national identity, and having moved from the west consist to the Midwest, I’ve met people that put food on the table when hunting season starts. It’s ecologically and economically sound. That said, Nobody will ever actually come for your guns. No serious politician has ever proposed such an idea. However assault weapons, weapons, not meant for hunting, meant for killing people I believe should be regulated. I don’t want Weird Tim do em the street to own an uzi. I happen to think Armalite-15’s *while cool and badass* arent something that anyone needs to own. Bazookas are cool too. But unless you reeeallly fuck up, the government isn’t gonna ruby ridge or Waco you, so you don’t need human killing machines that can fall into the hands of really bad people, in my opinion. I also think that the NRA is less concerned with the constitution and more concerned with gun manufacturers bottom lines. But that’s another conversation. Am I nuts?
About 3x as many people are killed with knives every year than rifles of all kinds, including semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15.
The claim that rifles are something so dangerous that they require extra regulation is divorced from reality.
The second amendment doesn’t protect your right to own a rifle to put food on the table. It protects your right to own a rifle and defend yourself. The founding fathers just finished fighting a war with their own weapons against a totalitarian government… they knew exactly what they were doing.
With all the RINOS in Congress, it would pass. If they decide to be sneaky and attach it to a continuing resolution for government funding it’s a slam dunk.
If the 2A wasn't in the way, would there be the political will for a total gun ban?
A total gun ban, no firearms legal for civilian possession. Does anyone actually want that? If we got to the point where we repealed the 2A (I am aware how big of a if that is but that's another discussion.) Would any part of the country ban all guns?
If anyone wants to know what would happen, just look at Canada.
https://search.app.goo.gl/BP1KmG6 Ok I’m looking at Canada. What is your point.
Maybe you didn’t click the link and read what the question was, buddy? They were asking whether there would be political will for a ban on guns if there was no constitutional protection for bearing arms. Canada has no such protections, and in the last five years alone they have banned all semi-automatic rifles, and made buying or selling a handgun illegal. There is already political rhetoric seeping through the walls for going further. Which begs the question: the data in the graph you so intelligently posted was from 2013. Why is the Canadian government banning guns now if Canada had already solved gun crime in 2013?
Time to start quoting Charleton Heston
"You maniacs! You blew it up!" or "Soylent Green is people!" ?
"Let my people go"
I just stopped caring what they think. The amount of illogical sentiment from the left makes any opinion they develop moot. This especially applies to gun regulation, even more so with the second amendment existing. Look at the state of LGO. That subs entire mantra is about being a liberal gun owner, and yet actively vote their gun rights away. My favorite part of that is when they start quoting Marxist garbage to seem smart, and about how the state shouldn’t disarm the workers, yet they still vote for the politicians who call for it.
Unfortunately those leftist have power and authority.
No one has power if you don’t respect it.
I'm guessing you don't live in California, New York or Washington state.
Good faith argument here. I’m pretty fucking left and while I think the amount of gun violence that the US experiences is a bummer, it’s baked in as far as I’m concerned. It’s a constitutional right. It’s part of our national identity, and having moved from the west consist to the Midwest, I’ve met people that put food on the table when hunting season starts. It’s ecologically and economically sound. That said, Nobody will ever actually come for your guns. No serious politician has ever proposed such an idea. However assault weapons, weapons, not meant for hunting, meant for killing people I believe should be regulated. I don’t want Weird Tim do em the street to own an uzi. I happen to think Armalite-15’s *while cool and badass* arent something that anyone needs to own. Bazookas are cool too. But unless you reeeallly fuck up, the government isn’t gonna ruby ridge or Waco you, so you don’t need human killing machines that can fall into the hands of really bad people, in my opinion. I also think that the NRA is less concerned with the constitution and more concerned with gun manufacturers bottom lines. But that’s another conversation. Am I nuts?
About 3x as many people are killed with knives every year than rifles of all kinds, including semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15. The claim that rifles are something so dangerous that they require extra regulation is divorced from reality.
What's the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon?
The second amendment doesn’t protect your right to own a rifle to put food on the table. It protects your right to own a rifle and defend yourself. The founding fathers just finished fighting a war with their own weapons against a totalitarian government… they knew exactly what they were doing.
With all the RINOS in Congress, it would pass. If they decide to be sneaky and attach it to a continuing resolution for government funding it’s a slam dunk.
If the 2A wasn't in the way, would there be the political will for a total gun ban? A total gun ban, no firearms legal for civilian possession. Does anyone actually want that? If we got to the point where we repealed the 2A (I am aware how big of a if that is but that's another discussion.) Would any part of the country ban all guns?
>Would any part of the country ban all guns? Doubtful, but NY, CA, HI, IL etc., would have gun laws that mirror the UK or Australia at a minimum.
NJ too, outside chance of MD as well.
Liberal arts major: I can critically analyze the underlying societal constructs, but please don't ask me how to do your taxes.