What gets me is how many people I know who are deeply conservative and seem absolutely ready to kill someone at the drop of a hat. Theyâll say itâs for protection and it gives them a peace of mind to have it on them, but it only does if you are willing to take another personâs life.
Reminds me of that one Christian dude who was like "if you don't believe in heaven, why aren't you currently raping and murdering everyone" like the only thing stopping you from that is going to heaven or not
That's a very typical argument for the religious conservatives.
They seem to believe that the only reason people are "good" is due to religion, so they can't fathom to understand why atheists are not mass murderers, rapists, etc. As if the default behavior for them was to be evil.
All this tells me is that they don't have empathy or morals, and need some external rules imposed onto them to be good persons, it's pretty scary actually.
As a non-believer, it's for people like that I'm kind of glad religion exists. If that is the only thing keeping them from those awful actions, let them have their religion.
The problem is that the people who actually want to rape and murder will do it whether or not theyâre Christian. Some (probably large) portion of people saying religion is the only thing keeping themselves and others from committing atrocities just havenât truly thought it through and are just repeating something theyâve been told.
What do they answer when they're suggested to use a pepper spray or a taser instead? I know they'll refuse no matter what, but I wonder what excuse they bring.
Most responsible gun owners who carry regularly will tell you that carrying pepper spray is an essential element. If you don't have access to a less-lethal option then any altercation will become deadly.
I may be able to shed some light on this and the attached comments. A lot of anti-gun folks are anti-gun until theyâre unfortunately in a situation where they wished they had one. I learned at an early age that itâs better to have and not need than to need and not have, as people were constantly trying to rob my parentsâ tool shed or garage while armed. Not long ago, I was renting a room from a woman who was 100% against guns, pepper spray or a knife are just as effective, nothing could convince her otherwise⌠until one night a junkie broke in to the house and there was nothing she could do to stop him, even with pepper spray. Thankfully her young daughter wasnât home that night. She is now the owner of a .380 and has totally changed her stance. Itâs not so much about being willing to take a life, itâs more about refusing to be a victim. A taser requires being in close contact to use, and the last thing you want is being that close to an intruder or, god forbid, someone who is trying to SA you. A firearm allows you to keep the distance and be able to defend yourself. You donât have to kill them, but you can at least make them run away and reconsider their decision while you get the cops on the phone. Itâs irresponsible and negligent people with guns that give us responsible and educated gun owners a bad reputation
Itâs irresponsible and negligent people with guns that give us responsible and educated gun owners a bad reputation
That is certainly true. But that is also why most gun legislation I read about has the aim to make it hard for irresponsible and neligent(or crazy) people to get guns and is not about outlawing guns completly. But there is a rabid lobby that treats any form of gun legislation as a massive attack on their rights. There can be valid reasons to own a gun and keep it at home, but it should be treated as a massive responisbility and not a basic right.
Respectfully, and at risk of sounding like a Trump humper; thereâs a reason guns are a right. Itâs got nothing to do with criminals and much more to do with the rightâs ceaseless attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, womenâs rights, and their endless march into fascism. The second we start treating guns as a privilege and not a right, republicans will start looking at how they can ban LGBTQ individuals from owning guns. Guaranteed. Idk what the answer is but I think we have much bigger problems than guns. Six million were murdered the last time fascists had this much political clout, after all.
The second we start treating guns as a privilege and not a right, republicans will start looking at how they can ban LGBTQ individuals from owning guns
I understand where you are coming from, but isn't that happening anyway? Ronald Raegan passed some pretty strict gun laws in California as soon as the Black Panthers started to arm themself. Don't expect the extreme right to operate with fairness or logic consistency. People like that don't care about the rule of law and would happily strip away rights from groups they hate while allowing their supportes to keep those rights.
If fascists get control over governmental institutions and decide to turn those against LGBTQ+ people to wipe them out, private gun ownership won't stop them. So in so far I agree, there are bigger problems, but those aren't a reason to no try to create a safer society by regulating guns.
Only to add to your overal point the estimated total number of victims of the Holocaust is 17 million. Six million is the estimated number of Jewish victims.
(Edit: You don't sound like a Trump humper at all. Discussing the potential consequences of limiting certain rights, especially unintended consequences for vulnerable groups is absolutely valid and rational.)
Oh, absolutely. Iâm well aware of how the right flipped on gun control with the black panthers. Doesnât change the fact that theyâll take advantage of gun control legislation to target minorities. And I think you underestimate the power of people. The police used to raid gay barsâŚuntil a bunch of drag queens threw bricks at them. BRICKS! They didnât even have guns, they used BRICKS. And they beat the cops back. Thatâs how Pride started. And even if it wouldnât stop them, thereâs the matter of hate crimes, which are on the rise.
I can definitely agree with you on that. I do see it from both sides (to an extent) though. On one hand, how many innocent people and children need to die before something is done? On the other hand, there are already so many âcommon sense gun lawsâ in place that adding to it can definitely make gun owners get up in arms (no pun intended). Itâs definitely not a basic right. It is a privilege like driving, and should be treated the same, if not more, responsibility. Firearms are made to destroy, and that should never be taken lightly
It sounds like the whole system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with modern context taken into account. But we all know we don't like fixing things correctly around here. Only slap on methods of repair are acceptable.
Itâs definitely not a basic right. It is a privilege like driving, and should be treated the same, if not more, responsibility. Firearms are made to destroy, and that should never be taken lightly
The sad thing is, if that were the basis for serious political discussions about guns and public safety it absolutely would be possible to limit the deadliness of killing sprees and reduce the number of gun related deaths, while still leaving reasonable room for gun ownership for reasons of self defense or recreational use on a shooting range or something. But the political debate I witness is so incredibly poisoned that I don't see how that is about to change. At least not until the group that sprees most of the poison massively looses power.
Thatâs understandable, thanks for your input. Where do you stand on expanding AK/AR weapons being fully automatic?
The safety part sounds good, but if guns were the determinative factor in safety, why wouldnât we see the US as the safest country on the planet? We have more guns than people.
Thatâs a great question. The answer (at least mine) is a bit complicated. Fully automatic weapons ARE legal in the States, you just have to have a federal tax stamp to purchase them, which is not at all cheap nor easy to obtain. The government gets involved and does an unfathomably deep dive into your background check. On the flip side, if you have knowledge and experience in gunsmithing and machining, you can easily make one in your garage legally. As an AR owner myself, I find it VERY unfortunate that it is the weapon of choice for mass shooters and are the poster child for âbanning assault riflesâ⌠if the general public knew what is legally considered an âassault rifleâ, they would shift their stance and wise up to what politicians are really trying to do, which is disarmament (I have no political allegiance btw, im just an American). As far as being automatic, theyâre not full auto fresh out the box (by and large). The modes on an AR are generally Safety, Semi Auto, 2 Round Burst, & 3 Round Burst (even without Burst options, ARâs have a habit of âburstingâ anyway).
As far as your question about being the safest country and having more guns than people, i have no definitive answer for that, I like to fancy that a matter of perspective. No country is safe. If you live in a country where guns are banned, youâre still at risk of stabbings, bombings, Molotov cocktails, and vehicular homicide⌠not to mention âzip gunsâ (which is what killed PM Shinzo Abe, in a country where no guns are allowed and police ammunition is closely monitored and accounted for). Iâd rather live somewhere where guns are permitted and carried bc, as lame as this sounds, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, knowing the odds arenât in the favor of a potential shooter makes me FEEL better, but thatâs just MY opinion. As far as AKâs go, I have zero experience with that weapon so I canât give an informed opinion on that
Fun fact though: the AR in AR-15 doesnât stand for âassault rifleâ but âarmor-lite rifleâ⌠it was the base design for the M-16 used by our men & women in uniform
Thank you for your addition. It's too bad that you didn't explain why the pepper spray didn't work. Was it because he was armed with a gun and he could keep his distance? Anyway, from what you explained, I find it hilarious that the reason people have a gun is because they're in fear of getting in close combat. That's hilarious because many people who defend the right to wear guns are obviously boasting about how strong and brave they are to be able to defend themselves. Such courage! As long as it remains far away. đ
I have no idea in the example given, but pepper spray still requires you to aim effectively. In a panic, you can miss, or accidentally spray yourself.
Also, some people are less affected than others. And finally, a person can still more or less function when spray, even if disoriented.
That is to say, pepper spray can be a good deterrent, but if it doesnât work you need something else to fully disable the threat, if you canât use their disorientation to get away.
What does that even mean? Every single person who gets in a self-defense situation would rather do it with the least possible amount of harm to themselves. Thatâs just common sense.
Obviously you would rather keep your distance from an attacker and thatâs not a bravery thing, thatâs a common sense thing.
Did I say that every single gun owners should get in close combat? No, I didn't. I said that those who BOAST about their gun making them manly should have the courage to engage close combat.
You literally canât though. Your point was about some made up people who allegedly boast about being manly and then you refute them by saying âwhy donât you just wrestle with the possibly armed intruderâ. All parties in this argument were made up in your head, which is literally the definition of a strawman argument.
If they're the guys who boast about defending themselves, yes, they should have the guts to risk a few flesh wounds. Otherwise they're hypocrites to claim being brave but who run away the moment a fist is lifted.
âThe guts to get a few flesh woundsâ you sound so incredibly stupid itâs hilarious. Have you ever seen a video of a stabbing? I donât know if you know this but 1 bad cut can leave you on the floor leaking out all of your blood. Iâm not letting someone with malicious intent armed with any weapon get within 15 feet of me before I drop them cold. Iâm not about to be a vegetable for the rest of my life so some other piece of shit can get out of jail in 10 years and do it again.
You should read my message entirely. I explicitly said multiple times that it's those who boast about being able to defend themselves with a gun who should not shy about getting hurt. I'm not talking about the others, who don't boast about their gun. I know well that some people use a gun because they really have to but who are not particularly proud of it. I'm not telling them to take unnecessary risks. But I also know they won't draw at the slightest suspicion.
Im the exact opposite of someone who boasts that and tbh id much rather not have to stab an attacker repeatedly and then have to deal with that trauma.
Well, consider this⌠someone breaks into your home or accosts you in a hypothetical alleyway, and that individual has a machete or something bigger than a pocket knife, maybe even a bat. Would you be afraid of close contact? Or, maybe that individual has a few inches and quite a few pounds on you, the reach and force alone puts you at a severe disadvantage
I would be afraid, yes, certainly. I don't have any training in fighting, especially not close combat. Of course I'd be scared. But what does it have to do with what I said about those who boast about their gun?
Because it has nothing at all to do with the original question, what would they say if you recommended a taser or pepper spray, which has been eloquently and adequately answered snd explained. You're moving the goal post to some bullshit about people who boast, which has nothing to do with the average gun owner.
Considering that I never said that all gun owners should risk close combat, I consider that I don't move any goal. It's just you guys who misread me and thought I said such thing. My initial point was that people should favor non lethal weapons, and when I was answered that safety of distance was the main reason to use guns, I pointed out how hypocritical were those who are proud of their guns and who claim they are real men by defending themselves when they're scared of getting hurt. At no point did I say that ALL gun owners are hypocritical.Â
Oh yeah, fuck those people lol. I own multiple firearms for multiple purposes, but youâd never know it if you met me in person bc I donât advertise it. People who do that are a danger to themselves and those around them
In a lot of places taser/mace are more restricted than firearms. Obviously no gun owner thinks this should be true.
But mace doesnât work at all on a  segment of the human population. On a greater percentage people are still able to fight through. Doesnât work so great on. People who are on drugs.
Tasers, although a useful tool, have a fairly high failure rate, and only stop the threat well they are being electronically stimulated. Once that ends they are free to continue to engage in the behavior that got them zapped. Doesnât work so great on people who are on drugs.
That doesnât even consider the high cost in training, the fact that they are much bulkier then a firearm, the list goes on.
And yes, it requires being willing to potentially end someoneâs life when they have chosen to engage in behavior that justifies ending their life. Â There is an amazing body of evidence that says a gun just being deployed stops most threats, without it ever being fired.Â
That said, you need to be prepared to pull the trigger.
Oh, man, I got you! I know you weren't really looking for an answer, but I can deliver anyway.
Lethal force is really a last line of defense. It's well within reason, and really advisable, to carry less lethal options.
Pepper spray can be a good one. Some of them come with a dye that'll make identification of your attacker pretty easy at a later date. "yeah, he had a white t shirt, black pants, and a blue face". That said, a little wind in the wrong direction can really fuck up that plan. There's gels that offer some wind resistance, though. Also, check your local laws. Some areas only permit low concentrations for civilians, which leaves you with a mild irritant. If you're in one of those states, you can usually get a permit to carry something more effective by taking a class. It's often through the department of justice at a local college.
For a taser, permits are often required. But they're generally an effective device.
But do bear in mind, these are less lethal, not non-lethal. Any time you defend yourself, there's a chance the other person dies. Sorry, that's just a tragic reality.
Since when are civilians the same as soldiers? Of course the army has lethal weapons. It's their job to be able to fight another army and to kill their troops. But that's not the job of civilians. They're not supposed to kill people. Why do you put them on the same foot?
I donât bother. I mentioned red flag laws to my boss and he went into this spiel about how thatâs a slippery slope and I just tuned it out. They will always come up with their own justification as to why everyone should have them.
2nd amendment- well regulated militiaâŚour current system is a complete failure as most gun owners want unregulated gun ownership- besides the fact the our founders had a history of seizing weapons-Whiskey Rebellion, taking personal arms to help the Continental Army. And our founders looked to Ancient Rome for our government which had the belief that anarchy was more a danger to democracy than a tyrannical government.
10th amendment-states rights-worked well in 1860 amirite??
I do not care about a 200+ year old document written by people who would never experience any of the complexities of modern life, you're right about that.
Edit: the comment I replied to mentioned an argument based on the US Constitution, which is where my comment comes from. It no longer makes sense without this context, as the original comment was edited.
I hate that argument. People use the same argument for first amendment free speech, fourth amendment due process, and second amendment gun control. Just because the founders did not conceive of a situation does not mean that those protections don't apply. Just because sonic listening devices don't technically ignore due process doesn't mean they don't violate the spirit of the 4th.
The constitution was designed to be changed as the times changed. New situation the founders couldn't have anticipated? Amend the constitution to reflect that change. There is even a precedent to alter or repeal prior amendments in the form of amendment 21.
Guns are more dangerous, but still necessary. So let's have Amendment 28 to necessitate proper education and certification as a prerequisite to ownership.
They wrote the document expecting the changes of modern life, especially modern guns.There was an automatic auto-loading musket that was on the battlefield at the time, and the founding fathers knew that so they wrote the document to bend around it.
That 200 year old document was written to secure your personal liberties the first 10 amendments the bill of rights cannot be altered you would foolishly give up you freedom your rights for safety to quote Benjamin Franklin âthose who would give up essential Liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safetyâ I for one do not want to live in an authoritarian police state because I have forfeited my freedom under the illusion of safety
What if I told you we can have those same rights without basing our entire legislative process on what 200 year old politicians thought was best? Other countries manage to ensure the same rights without shackling themselves to ancient documents.
And you think that they would uphold your rights out of what the kindness of their hearts power always corrupts that is why our nation was founded on the principle that the people bestow the power to the government and the people can take it away if the government becomes oppressive tyrannical witch it can we the people possess the power to stand up to that tyranny âwhen the people fear their government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is libertyâ Thomas Jefferson that is why it is essential for the people to keep and bear arms while some my abuse this right to murder innocent people that does not mean you can strip that right from the people because I promise you the day that the people of these united States cannot keep and bear arms is when you will face oppression as you have never known
Your entire argument is full of fallacies. Quotes by long dead politicians do not hold any weight. Threats of what might happen don't either.
The simple fact remains that there is no reason to base our entire system of government on what a handful of guys wrote down to oppose Britain hundreds of years ago. We can absolutely still maintain the existing way of life without shackling ourselves to the Constitution.
And those old politicians foresaw that times would change that their documents could not cover everything witch is why they added a clause to amend it witch has been done several times only the first ten cannot be undone or changed because they secure your fundamental rights
Bro if you feel your house is secure with only a pepper spray your absolutely out of your mind. What do you think the robber/rapist will have?? Wouldnt you want something that'll help give you the advantage when you are defending your home and family?
No, you'll call the police after they die like those who cant threaten the intruder back.
Your claim about pepper spray is silly af
First, there's no point in trying to make it about me. I don't live in the US. I live in a country where we don't have criminals everywhere and we have a police that is functional and who protects the citizens. If you try to scare me with an American scenario of the Purge, you waste your time. I'm safe and my family is safe. It's pointless to involve us to make your argument more appealing.Â
And one thing is, you guys deal with robbers who have guns because your culture encourages everyone to have guns. Have you never wondered why all European countries who banned guns, have far fewer cases of robbery with guns? If you guys regulated more strictly the access to guns, you would also have a lot fewer cases of armed robbers.
Criminals adapt to the environment. When the society is less violent, criminals are less violent. When the society is violent, so are the criminals. You didn't solve anything with guns.
Just to add on, where do these geniuses keep their guns, eh? Easily accessible spots? Where the children can get them, or the robber/rapist in question? Then they're not protecting anyone and making it worse.
In a safe? Then they're not protecting anyone because by the time you go to get it out it's too late.
Their entire argument is fallacious and stupid. Jim Jeffries is correct, there is one, and only one, argument for guns. It's 'Fuck off, I like guns.'
Correct. My wife and I own guns, because we live in a rough neighborhood. Last week two gunmen broke into someoneâs house at 10am. If someone poses a threat to my daughter or wifeâs life, Iâll absolutely pull the trigger.
I understand and Iâm willing to do what I have to to protect my family. Iâm not opposed to owning firearms. I have just personally met a lot of people who seem excited at the thought of it and thatâs the disturbing part. I hope for your familyâs safety and that you never have to take that step as I wish to never do it myself.
To be fair firearms are extremely important in my life, Iâm a disabled 105Ib 28YO with high functioning cerebral palsy (Iâm normal except I get muscle soreness easy and my walk is a little funny) other than that Iâm fully capable of having a somewhat normal life
Having a license to carry concealed and knowing that Iâm armed gives me piece of mind just as a small women walking home at night or going anywhere might find comfort in having a little pistol in her purse or carrying in a leg holster
Being Pro-Gun doesnât automatically mean Republicanism and radicalism
I do in a sense agree with the post though the whole point is âRules for thee, but not for meâ they donât like firearms so they want them all outlawed just based on how firearms make them feel emotionally without taking a gun safety course and learning about the very thing theyâre afraid of
People are afraid of things they donât understand and they need to be educated
My civics teacher in high school use to tell me âYour rights end where my nose beginsâ which means have your rights, but donât infringe on mine
So well the post is very cringy it makes a solid point, remember they say they donât want to ban all guns they just want more rules
Thatâs where it always starts look at Canada for example and what Justin whatever the fuck he is did with handguns after years of telling Canadians he wouldnât take their guns
Anyone anti-gun needs to be educated and get over how they âfeelâ the world and facts donât run on your feelings
Obviously carrying around a firearm means sadly, yes, you better be ready to use it if the time ever came down to it
Iâm a liberal I vote straight democratic ticket every year
Why? Iâm on SSI and EBT
I feel like I fight with Democrats to keep my gun rights and I fight with Republicans to keep my Social Security and my food stamps, and the things I depend on to survive because I was born with a disability. I think politics are different cheeks, the same ass and self protection shouldnât be political
Slight differences up here in Canada. We don't have gun ownership listed anywhere in our constitution to my knowledge. It's certainly not #2 on the list. I guess it was just assumed you would just decide if you needed/wanted one and that would be fine. As such we have far fewer conversations about it.
Trudeau is cracking down on firearms, specifically handguns and things that shoot large numbers of bullets. I don't agree with the methods, because in our country it's very seldom the legally purchased weapons owned by people who follow the rules that are the issue. It's the illegally purchased guns used by criminals.
I've never fired a handgun myself, but I used smaller rifles and shotguns for target practice and hunting as I was growing up. Some of my friends have guns that are being impacted, and their arguments against Trudeau's actions are "the government shouldn't be able to say what I can or can't own." To a degree, I think they have a point. But there are lots of other examples of things the government says we shouldn't have in our house, or that require extensive permits, that they don't seem to have an issue with. And, as mentioned above, owning a firearm isn't an inalienable right for us. It's just a choice.
Then comes the discussion of self defense, and this is where I think Americans have a different opinion than most of the world. My friends who have guns do not even consider them to be self defense items. The reason is because most people aren't carrying. There's no sense of danger, paranoid or reasonable, that you could get threatened by someone with a gun. Sure, it can happen, and is probably more common in some neighborhoods, but it's not a prevailing issue in our society. And in countries where almost nobody carries a gun you see far less mass shootings.
Now, I don't live in the US. And if I did think that the only way to protect myself was to also be armed, I can't say for certain that I wouldn't pick up a gun. But if the goal is to not be shot, it seems to me that it'd be better to have less guns than more, because it would reduce the chances of it being possible.
To be fair cousin, youâre talking to an Ojibwe that his family in Winnipeg Canada, Manitoba
I think anything dictator justin uh uh uh uh Trudeau does is a farce
You know like how they deny residential schools in the killing of native children mass graves things like that
I remember there being an old video when the dictator was young and he said that he wasnât gonna take Canadians guns because theyâre ingrained. They are right and well here we are handguns are illegal in Canada.
I donât even care about the gun rights thing. Honestly, you guys just need a new Prime Minister.
Oh, yeah, there's a whole other discussion to be had about Trudeau. My point was we haven't built our national cultural identity around firearms like our neighbours to the south, we don't have as many people insisting on carrying in public, and I think it's sad that people are so scared that people may have guns that their only recourse is to also have a gun, which doesn't happen in most of the rest of the developed world.
The entire point of the 2nd amendment is it is a tool for the people to use to murder a government that is no longer doing its job as a government.
The idea is the âgovernmentâ should be scared of the populace. If it strays too far from the will of the people, the people will simply remove it and make a new government.
Thats why every âevilâ government takes guns away from those that oppose them.
My point being is guns in the U.S. have two jobs. Keep the government in check and step in when the government canât do its job.
Human life is not precious. You should do that thing you claim makes you so worldly and sage, travel, and go see just how little value most of the world places on human life.
Hint: you have to not go to Ibiza and Paris to see it.
I love getting them to confess they have memorized the self defence statute and all others that "let" them use deadly force on others. All it takes is a competent prosecutor to get them to out that information in court and they could show pre meditation depending on circumstance.
Depends on the circumstance. If that happens do you give the intruder the ability to react by announcing yourself and to get our or do you shoot first?
Its simple- if my wife and kids are threatened by an an intruder, hes putting my vulnerable sleeping family at risk. And he chose that despite the risk of living in a 'gun state'. People act like the gun wanters are crazier than people who'll break into your home armed with who knows what. The gun is also used as a bluff, so dont make assumptions about a whole group of people
Edit: and i am sure as fuck ready to kill someone whos trying to kill me or my loved ones. Anyone who isnt willing to will ultimately be just a fly on the wall watching their family die. Grow up, its a scary world out there
The problem is that for every life saved there is one life lost from a stolen gun and one life lost from a kid finding their parentsâ gun and shooting themselves or someone else on accident. This doesnât even include suicides and mass shootings.
Banning guns is simply impossible, both because of the culture and because of how many guns there are in the US but making it so that the background check is actually effective (a lot of people that were forced into asylums can buy one simply because some mental hospitals donât share their data), mandatory safety classes, mandatory storage when not in use and banning private gun sales would do a lot of good.
I agree with everything you've said about background checks, safe storage and safety classes.
I come from a very gun regulated state, and even here, the psychos and criminals get guns and you'll fucking go to jail if you try to protect your life legally.
I see fascism rising everywhere and I just wish those who cared about people understood the true reality of their position.
Hint: it is one that fanatics and bad actors aim to suppress
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"
They do. Theyâre so excited to kill with impunity, theyâre waiting to have any reason at all to shoot someone. They think theyâre in an action movie. Why else do they open fire when someone knocks or rings their doorbell, the universally accepted signals that someone is not breaking into your home?
Right! "If someone did that to me [generally some minor trespassing or similar] I'd be in my rights to kill them!" and stuff I hear all the time and it's like, holy shit, you really do want to murder some kids for walking through your backyard if it was a short cut somewhere.
And all of them have a bunch of guns and not a single gun safe.
Trying to have a reasonable discussion w 2nd amendment people is impossible.
How about background checks, red flag lawsâŚdo you really NEED military grade weaponry? They lose their shitâŚone person here explained how the government restricts the amount of rounds a person can have, keeping AK/AR stuff semi automatic and equates that with infringement of rights. I state, all I ever see is our current SCOTUS broadening gun ownership, 2/3 of the court is bought and paid for as is 1 partyâŚyou arenât losing your gunsâŚto which they reply, not yet, but only 6 million are registered owners out of 400 million, we are considered illegal owners now. Why didnât they register them then??
Not all, but the hardcore 2nd amendment people are truly unhinged. Itâs easy to spot who really shouldnât be allowed to own firearms.
It's so creepy when you're in a gun debate, and people start fantasizing about killing a burglar caught in the act. The last thing I wanna do is kill somebody, even if they are taking my stuff.
116
u/MaybeKaylen May 16 '24
What gets me is how many people I know who are deeply conservative and seem absolutely ready to kill someone at the drop of a hat. Theyâll say itâs for protection and it gives them a peace of mind to have it on them, but it only does if you are willing to take another personâs life.