We passed civil rights with nonviolent action no matter what history you want to revise. You might find some bullshit somewhere but I'll believe it when I believe it was called "The Triangle Trade".
An AR-15 or AK-47 are NOT battle tanks though. Regardless of how much Liberals want to convince us otherwise. Charles Whitman didn't use an "assault rifle" to kill people in Texas in 1966. He used a 6mm bolt-action Remington. Neither did the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho. He used 2 pistols. I can also think of two other mass shootings that were committed with nothing more than a pump-action shotgun. And what is the Liberal response? "Expanded background checks".....whatever the fuck that means; they never tell you because they don't know themselves.........and magazine capacity restrictions.....you know, because it's harder for criminals to kill someone with 10 rounds in their pistol rather than 15...... Liberals are SO fucking stupid on the issue of firearms that it is appalling. The worst part about it is that they dupe the gullible and ignorant in this country, and they far outnumber the informed and educated.
OK--you're going to have to help me out with how the existence of the prefatory clause means that an individual citizen doesn't have a right to own a gun. Madison made it pretty clear in Federalist 46 that state militias would serve the role of opposing a federal army in the case of a tyrannical government, and that those would be composed of ordinary citizens who would be armed. Thus, I've always read that clause as providing the reason why the right to bear arms must not be infringed, which itself is in keeping with the purpose of the bill of rights as a whole--to protect the people from potential overreach of the government. Now, if you believe that the whole purpose of the 2nd is no longer valid--as many do--then I'd imagine an amendment to repeal would be on the agenda. But that doesn't invalidate the amendment's original purpose or meaning, which is that citizens do, in fact, have a constitutional right to "own a killing machine" (within the parameters of existing SCOTUS-approved regulation/restriction).
It's not ironic. Y'all just aren't listening and want to apply your crappy false narratives. No one is talking about taking your guns away nor your right to own one. We will however, like it or fucking not, regulate it for our safety. Y'all talk a big game like about mental health, but really are giving lip service and don't want to do shit.
The federalist papers are NOT the constitution and frankly I'm a bit tired of them being brought up. The comma in the 2nd amendment doesn't separate it into 2 rights. Bottom line, it needs regulation.
And frankly, since this is really starting to piss me off how y'all want to mischaracterize my stance: Our gun laws should be like Switzerland's. Look them up. But before you do ask yourself this: Why did Hitler NOT attack Switzerland?
No, they're not, but they help to explain the rationale behind various parts of it, as in this instance. More information is rarely a bad thing. And no, the comma doesn't separate the 2nd into two separate rights. But the text clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I'm not exactly sure what other right you think the 2nd was intended to protect/define? Perhaps you care to help me out with your interpretation of the 2nd, as you believe the framers intended?
I apologize if you feel I was mischaracterizing your stance. My, "if you feel it should be repealed" comment was not intended to be a statement of what I think you believe, and I'm sorry if it appeared to be so.
What do you think the word "BAN" means bro? I want you to tell me why this is wrong: I want you to explain to me why that is wrong. If you can do that, then I'll start taking you seriously about the issue of firearms ownership. Ignore the fact that it's a meme, because the message in it is completely serious, and one that gun owners all across this country have to deal with on a daily basis. Just curious: what do you think of Australia's firearm laws? That's Australia. I don't want that bullshit coming here, thank you.
It's not you at all. It's folks that act like they know the liberal stance and take it to the nth degree and say we want to repeal the 2nd amendment. If one starts at this BULLSHIT stance, instead of talking about what needs to be done, I'm left refuting imaginary CRAP. It's a Gish Gallop of the highest order, and frankly I'm sick of it. Where do we go if one side starts with a false notion about what the other side wants?
Fake news. Your slippery slope argument is FUCKING TIRED.... Second, read the thread and look up Swiss Gun Laws. In Switzerland every male 15-49 is REQUIRED to own a firearm. I'M LIBERAL, AND THIS IS WHAT I WANT.... DOES THIS FUCKING COMPUTE OR NOT!?!
Okay. And how often do Liberals listen to a Conservative's standpoint on the issue of firearms? Or even just gun owners? I'm not even far-Right. I consider myself a Moderate. And I've never had ONE Liberal EVER listen to me about firearms or Firearm Laws. Not one. And I actually use documented facts from scholars to back up my assertions, from people like Massad Ayoob, Alan Korwin, and Dave Kopel. All of whom have actual experience in court and self-defense shootings to back up their findings and knowledge. In fact, I'm actually reading this right now: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/de...ght-to-self-defense-massad-ayoob/1119045666#/ If you're not gonna take someone like Ayoob seriously about this issue, then who ARE you going to believe? A bunch of teenagers with no life experience? So you're not willing to actually debate the point of that meme. Don't get pissy about it....those are issues that we as gun owners have to deal with daily. If you don't like the narrative, then work with gun owners to change the narrative. Unfortunately, politicians and billionaires from New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut control the narrative right now. Fix that.
What did the guy use in Vegas when he killed what? 57? How about at Sandy Hook where 20 little children and 6 adults? Bump stocks and assault type rifles ought to be banned. What are they good for? killing people.
Because that's ALWAYS the conservatives Fall back plan. It's tired. And that's not the liberal stance @Jade Falcon. That's why I don't continuously refute it. I'm tired of refuting crap that's not true. You asked how often I speak to conservatives about their opinions: Every day nearly. My BEST FRIEND is pretty damn conservative (indendent) and his wife is a registered Republican. Plus I hear nothing but y'alls side everyday in here.
