Show of Hands

We already have laws to regulate it. All it does is regulate law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about laws.

If firearms were as abundant in schools as fire extinguishers, sandy hook could never happen in a million years. Period.

Explain to me what loophole lead to sandy hook...

And the criminal will still get guns.

There are about 80 million gun oners in the US, owning 270 million guns. If we were the problem, you would know about it.

Nah, some dingdong would try to shoot the shooter and wind up mowing down even more people.

So should I start sharing links to the near daily encounters where conceal carriers are using their firearms to stop criminals, or are you just gonna keep thinking about how many dicks you can suck in one sitting?

How about banning government possession of Gus?

Do you mean keeping police from having guns, or keeping the government from taking people's guns? Or neither?

You might wanna check who started using that phrase back in 2013... but, I encourage everyone to use it!!! Some truths need to be reiterated as often as possible.

Btw, bonus points if you know who really originated that phrase... and it wasn't on this app.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" but they sure as shit make it easier.

It makes it harder if the law abiding around you have guns ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ hell if you think that a gun ban would actually get rid of guns then you might be delusional

It's easier to kill someone with a car then a gun too in my opinion...

Lol I meant to say I wouldn't have many restrictions

And what would that accomplish? It still wouldn't stop an under the table sale or a straw purchase.

Well how do you stop that?

You can't.

Why bring it up then?

To educate ignorant kids like yourself.

I'm ignorant how?

concept*

For a grammar nazi you sure end up with a lot of mistakes of your own.

Also, you're thinking of an absolute monarchy. I don't believe such a thing as executive monarchy exists.

The second amendment also doesn't authorize any government restrictions on the right to bear arms. Does "shall not be infringed" ring a bell? Also, the word "militia" described was meant to be known as an armed populace and not necessarily as a government military.

The 1st Amendment was written in mind with a British government who would toss you into a rotting prison for speaking out against the Crown. Now that we have a friendly government, we should give up that right. The 3rd Amendment was written in mind with an oppressive ruling military that would barge into your house and enjoy your hearth against your will. Now that our military is so much more moral than 1770's Britain, we should give up that right. Wake up America, wake up dammit!

Going by that logic, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to film, television, radio, or the internet; since these things didn't exist when the bill of rights was adopted.

You can't type that on your phone because the founding fathers couldn't have possibly known that communication would be this easy and the first amendment was created for printing presses and written letters. Smh.

It was written about muskets and cannons because that is what the British were armed with as well, now that the police are armed to the teeth the people need to be too

This argument has been proven false time and time again. There were rapid fire weapons at the time and the founding fathers were fully aware of them. Founding fathers supported cannon ownership and there's documents to prove it. If you think it's just for muskets, you're horrendously incorrect

It says "a well-regulated militia." Do you know what the word "regulated" means?

In the context of a "well regulated militia", the most appropriate definition is well trained, or disciplined.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-George Mason; co author of the 2nd Amendment. Nice try. Don't change how the people that wrote it interpreted it.

Why in a document full of telling the government what it cannot do would they stick in a clause that says the government can do this one thing? Especially after writing the constitution which lays out exactly what the governments role is and how it is to be conducted.

So I ask do you know what well regulated means?

AprilStorms, at the time "well regulated" was a common term for "working as it should"

They're probably saying he's on the basis that if they'd be writing a new constitution they'd most likely me a dictator and then they wouldn't want the public to have guns so they aren't a threat to their power. Not their actual beliefs on whether guns should be illegal.

Bwmanderville, there're so many spelling errors, it's difficult to derive the meaning.

*bwmandeville and all the ones I see are autocorrect errors...granted there are grammatical errors, but I don't really care about those on a social site. This isn't school. Now I'm pretty sure that most people can derive the meaning of what I said, so either you're just causing trouble or you have a reading impairment.

You live in Mandeville?

......moron

Nolan.......... Ah........ NO.

We wouldn't have car problems if we made cars illegal either.

But correlation does not equal causation.

right, we wouldn't have THIS gun problem because we'd have a much worse problem

What do you mean, they could keep tabs on suspicious people who owned guns? Why? How?

He means enemies of the state.

Where in the 4th amendment does that plan look okay?

Anything is fine once you call the gun owner a terrorist.

That's what Hitler did.

You don't get it.. He's saying that the reason to ban guns is so a dictator can stay in power without the threat of revolution.

Why not

Because it's to divisive an issue to lay a blanket statement on either way and should be periodically reevaluated

So was the right to own people as property yet surely you're fine with THAT amendment.

Some things are just right and wrong, and whether some people agree or disagree is irrelevant.

Rights are not subject to tyranny of the majority.

I'd agree that some rights are universal however I don't think the right to own a device that is specifically designed to kill and injure things from a distance is a universal right. Additionally I think comparing gun rights to slavery is crass and offensive. Finally I think that almost everything should bear reexamination even if you would never reimplement it, examination of outdated ideas can bring new light onto modern practices.

Its not crass nor offensive if you examine the intent of what I was saying. You're saying its such a divisive issue. All I said, again if you listen to what i'm saying, is that slavery was also a divisive issue. Yet some thing are recognized as just right or wrong.

You do not get to tell me what I can or cannot own. I know its popular to hate weapons these days but its my right to do so. This whole "modern" thing is just ridiculous.

So again, I don't really give a god damn what your liberal mind thinks about my right to do it it IS my right and you have no place to deny me that. Simply owning a firearm harms no one.

We agree on the misuse of such a tool, definitely. That's a different and separate conversation. But monopolizing this right to the State is such a stupid stupid stupid idea that hopefully I don't need to outline why.

The problem is that statistics don't back you rebel you guys are always claiming that guns save tons of lives but the facts show we have an absurdly high gun death toll in the U.S. and we are the only first-world nation that has such liberal gun laws. If the nightmare dictatorship you propose was an inevitability after restricting guns then Japan would be an iron fisted dictatorship but it's not. And of course the issue never focuses on the largest group of gun victims out there, the suicides.

1. Again, the misuse by someone else will not be used to deny me my rights
2. Just because it hasn't happened there doesn't mean its impossible here. How's North Korea doing these days?
3. You think if you wave the "guns be gone" magic wand that suicidal folks won't find a different way? What do you think you'll achieve there?
4. Concealed carry individuals stop crime every day which you can verify with a Google search.

I know its mandatory for liberals to hate guns but you all do so irrationally. You think with emotion rather than logic which is why this argument goes in circles.

You want to lower the gun death rate? First, as you even stated, you have to take out suicides which are included in that number. I don't believe its honest. Yes they technically died by firearm but they wouldve used pills or the car anyway so I call shenanigans.

End the drug war. That would go a HUGE way towards lowering gun violence. People like me are not the issue and you liberals know it. But again, its popular and easy to speak put against all guns because debating the facts is too difficult.

Rebel is say you are the one thinking with emotion as opposed to logic. Look I will agree that taking away guns is a requirement for a dictatorship however what I would disagree with is that taking them away in the US would lead to one. Japan proves a lack of guns does not a dictatorship make so do you really think we are so close to a dictatorship that the second you don't have a gun tanks will be rolling down your street. As for your claim about concealed carry if you want me to believe you provide your own verified sources, saying just google it is a lazy mans argument and it means that if you have sources you are worried I won't agree with them and so you are trying to get me to find sources I will agree with. As for the suicides you are running afoul of a common misconception, suicide is rarely some long planed out thing it's generally spur of the moment and if the person has a few minutes to reconsider they won't go through with it.

For evidence I present you this article by the New York Times: mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&referer=http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns_p3.html.
This article talks about how in the UK a common suicide method was sticking your head in the oven and once the stoves changed and there were no more gas burning stoves the suicide rate plunged tremendously. This proves that if a suicidal person has some time to think things over they won't go through with it but when that gun is a few steps away it's far to easy to end your life fast. Finally your point about "others misuse shouldn't prevent my use" if you were a kindergarten teacher and kids kept using a foam sword to hit other kids would you leave the foam sword with the other toys?

Also rebel I am debating facts here with you right now. Please don't be insulting as it makes you look rather juvenile.

1. It may not directly lead to a dictatorship but it would disallow us from preventing one. I don't see how you could deny that.
2. Your bullshit about suicide is just so laughably wrong. Oh fuck what do I know I only went through it.

3. Asking you to do your own research is how I do things. First, its an internet argument. Neither you or I will leave his changing our minds so whats the point. Second, your knowledge and opinions are your own responsibility. I will not spoon feed you, go forth and search for the truth yourself.

"Similarly, studies have shown that merely keeping a gun unloaded and storing its ammunition in a different room significantly reduces the odds of that gun being used in a suicide."

Yeah, and renders it virtually worthless in a home invasion scenario as well. This is so common with anti gun folks, you look at it so narrow mindedly. If someone is suicidal they're going to do it. Taking away a fundamental right from EVERYONE because a small percentage of the population chooses to off themselves, which is sad but their decision, is just ridiculous.

What scares me is the 14% 😂😂😂 proud of soh users in majority being smart.

Majority (86% of people saying no)

I second this

In that situation, you could own another person...

Did you just say a person was property 😂

@bocol No, I merely addressed the fact that without restriction on property ownership one could claim anything to be "property" including a person.

That includes drugs

Owning another person would infringe upon their rights.

I am sure you know that my constitution wouldn't consist of ONLY this one line. =)

And yes...that does include drugs.

How is "shall not be infringed" vague.

"Right to bear arms" is too vague, that could mean a nuclear weapon or a squirt gun.

Still pretty descriptive.

Is it an armament?
Then it can be owned

That's what they want though. When they take our guns then they can make us a communist country and we can't fight back😂. Also if everyone in a company is carrying, and 1 guy storms the building with a shotgun then fewer people will die than if

None were carrying 😜

They also believe Hillary is a Constitution-loving truth teller.

You do realize there are only about 180,000 automatic weapons in the hands of private owners. Owning them is highly regulated and highly expensive to get the proper permits. And most of the people that I know that own automatic weapons (and I do know several) have more than one so it's not like there are one hundred and eighty thousand individuals who own them the number is far less than that.

No individual May own a fully automatic rifle that was manufactured after 1986. So the numbers of those weapons that are out there in the general public is not growing it is in fact shrinking due to people who get rid of them by turning them into the proper authorities or they simply get too old to be used because they have not been maintained

I do understand that is the case, but it's my new constitution and if I feel a need to codify a couple of limitations then it's my choice. The restrictions of the old constitution would be supplanted by my new one but I'm not opposed to ownership.

"Fully Automatic" Doe you know how hard it is to get a full auto weapon, thered only a handful of them on the market and you need months of paperwork.

You already have to be 21 to buy NFA regulated firearms... Once again an ignorant anti-gun fool trying to be "reasonable."

It's easy to own a fully automatic weapon.

It is not that easy to own one legally.

Congressman: The question was about a hypothetical constitution that I myself am writing. I have admitted many times that for myself I do not care for firearms... but I am NOT an "anti-gun fool". Why do you feel a need to belittle me?

Because that's how Republicans are, they always resort to name-calling...that's why they like Trump....they think it's normal.

Sorry....let me rephrase that...that's how many Republicans are...and they often resort to name-calling.

Earthmunkey if you really think automatic firearms are easy to get, please show me such evidence.

And schoolmom, I'm neither a republican or trump supporter. But I wouldn't expect a close minded progressive like yourself to have any consideration for an opposing view.

Some of us just take offense to other people trampling on our rights and forcing their view of "right" on us.

I have never tried to buy one but I have a few semi-autos that I could mod to be automatic. I personally wouldn't do it because auto isn't an easy way to kill someone and conserve rounds or not hurt other people.

The key word is legal. It is easy and cheap to have an automatic weapon in your home illegally. No forms, no local cops knowing it is there, no registration...just a gun in a closet.

Slippery slope?

Damn right jhawk 😉 slippery slope. Lol love the use of those words at the perfect time

Yeah like that horrible dictator ship that is Japan. Oh wait.

Or north korea

Says nothing about assault rifles, which many democrats oppose ownership to. I haven't yet met a liberal who refused hand gun ownership

Hello. I'm a liberal. I support the right to own guns.

I haven't seen a lot of liberal views from you....

Good for you. Ask me if I care.

I'm a liberal. Not a progressive that calls themselves a liberal.

But I suppose I'll entertain you. I support same sex marriage and the rights of all same sex couples to have what heterosexual couples have. I believe in decriminalizing certain drugs, and reforming our prison system to emphasize rehabilitation instead of incarceration. I support net neutrality, a solid separation between church and state, universal healthcare, and many other truly liberal stances. A true liberal. Not a fascist progressive.

I wish more liberals like yourself would speak out against progressives. I believe if both sides were to speak out against those who suggest authoritarian actions on society, like progressives, then we would be much less divided and set fourth a positive future for our country.

I like it

I'm in

I'm fine with that as long as those of us who prefer not to own a firearm are free to deny the financial support of any criminal incarcerated due to the commission of a crime while armed. I'd rather support infrastructure than prisons.

Then you can pay the Sanders rate of 70% taxes.
Help pay for targets.

So you want to do it with the 16th Amendment, so no income tax. Then how would you pay for a military?

I knew what to do over the 17th Amendment which allows for the election of US senators and such... How would you propose that they be elected then?

We had a military before we had federal taxes so we can go back to that system

Downsize the military. Also senators were not intended to be directly elected by the people, rather by state legislatures. This gives the states more say in the federal government, something that is sorely needed.

Lovejoy we had property tax which was eliminated because it screws over people like farmers who have a lot of land but not a lot of capital

I'm sure the state legislators would still want to be paid

To add to this, why not also have grenades, land mines, and tanks?

Also, why can't I buy a nuke?

No nukes or land mines without a background check. We have to keep some control. Grenades will be voted on next month.

Why would I need a background check to own grenades? If I have been properly trained in their use and they are stored correctly then they are only dangerous when I want them to be.

"Also, why can't I buy a nuke?"

Because you're not a multimillionaire.

"Why can't I buy a nuke"

If that's a serious question you have no business even discussing this topic much less having an opinion on it

And we have survived hundreds of years with guns. :-/

I guess you don't like people defending themselves mr Biden

Yeah it really helped those people in Paris!

Freetexan considering the fact that the US has tragedies like that almost daily you should think a bit before you say something like that

Not like that.

What you always fail to realize is, these things are already here, and criminals won't follow the law anyway.

And that the style of weapon is inconsequential to its use and magazine capacity has no appreciable effect on crime. You basically just said "no handguns" and created a nation where criminals roam the streets with sawed-off rifles and the people have no defense.

Doopy, you're back! And you still have that weak troll BS you always have to try to hook people into your inane arguments which they will never conclude, they just get lost in your maze of obfuscation. Hope you don't catch a stray bullet from one of those guns you worship.

Project much?

Just engage with the argument: you're ignorant of the real world application of guns and your proposed solutions would do more harm than good.

At least you're honest about it, tyrant :P

In that respect, sure. Then again I'd also be affording near complete civil rights along with most of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Enlightened despotism.

The anti-registration people would counter that argument with if the government knows where the weapons are the first step would be to confiscate them

Yeah, but even they know that's a facile argument. A government that's determined to confiscate the guns from a well armed populace doesn't need any sort of registry to set about the task.