"Stricter gun laws" = NOTHING to do with "banning guns"

[Shodan 2.0]

Just saying, it seems like too many people misunderstand this idea or just misinterpret it on purpose in order to have some "problem" to whine about and a "common enemy" as a manipulation tool or simply just to have more things to whine about.

Anyway, "stricter gun laws" would just make it harder for the wrong people to get access to guns. The people who take away other people's freedom. Without such people having access to guns, everyone else would have more freedom. Freedom to live. Freedom to go anywhere without fear of getting shot.

The problem isn't guns or normal gun owners, it's just the wrong people being able to access them too easily and without even knowing how to use them responsibly.

Stricter gun laws would absolutely not affect all the normal gun owners out there who are the majority, so I don't see what's the problem. You would still have your guns for self-defense just in case because you can never fully get rid of criminals, but you would definitely be less likely to have to use them as a last resort.

See, you can have a gun in Massachusetts just fine:

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/gun-ownership-in-massachusetts

But, because Massachusetts has stricter gun laws, mass shootings (specifically school shootings) there are as nonexistent as in Europe and it's generally one of the best states in terms of safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Massachusetts

Just 4 entries here, basically isolated incidents as anywhere else in the world.

Switzerland has a really strong gun culture and plenty of guns, but mass shootings are nonexistent. Go figure. Maybe it's proper regulations, as well as proper education and training?

[nohuman]

Ursprungligen skrivet av The Father ☯:

Ursprungligen skrivet av EnÐסGeÑe§¡§:

Says the guy supporting a genocidal regime. lol.

What genocidal regime would that be?

Same one you are enthralled to apparently.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Ursprungligen skrivet av EnÐסGeÑe§¡§:

Ursprungligen skrivet av The Father ☯:

What genocidal regime would that be?

Same one you are enthralled to apparently.

I've heard that claim multiple times but I don't see any genocide. Ever consider how the de-humanizing language of falsely claiming someone is a genocider is a very very good reason not to give even an inch when they also advocate restricting guns?

[Plaid]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Fumo Bnnuy Gaming:

2. good ole mary jane actually created the mafia 2.0 with mexican drug cartels peddling that crap hardcore.

It was criminalized. Funny how that opens up a large black market and creates more crime.
Our government was/is fused with that mafia.

[nohuman]

Ursprungligen skrivet av The Father ☯:

Ursprungligen skrivet av EnÐסGeÑe§¡§:

Same one you are enthralled to apparently.

I've heard that claim multiple times but I don't see any genocide. Ever consider how the de-humanizing language of falsely claiming someone is a genocider is a very very good reason not to give even an inch when they also advocate restricting guns?

Did you look under your table? Under the bed? Still nothing? Figures.
Hard to imagine dehumanising something that never resembled the thing in the first place.

[Kamiyama]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Fajita Jim:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Kamiyama:

The minute men were a militia. They were citizens who owned firearms who showed up to fight an invading army when they were called upon to do so.

They don't necessarily train and drill like the army does.

Like the person above said, the right to own firearms and the right to form a militia are two separate things. They are intertwined, but they are two rights.

Just like the right to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press are all part of the first amendment.

They are the same right, and was held so until just a few years ago. District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 if you aren't familiar.

Strange how you folk like the original interpretation of something until it doesn't go your way. As was said earlier:

Ursprungligen skrivet av GloriousZote:

the meaning they interpret suits our current situation more.

That's factually incorrect because that's not the wording of the 2nd.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A militia is stated as a reason for the right, however it doesn't give militia the right to bear arms it gives the people the right to bear arms.

So I suspect that particular case was corrupted by a left-wing extremist judge.

Just more proof that democrats are hell-bent on stripping away our constitutional rights.

* it was a SCOTUS ruling. Of course. Which is why we need conservative republicans in the SCOTUS. Rulings like this prove that it's being weaponized.

[Ulfrinn]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Fajita Jim:

Ursprungligen skrivet av GloriousZote:

Yeah, like how people keep misinterpreting the right to bear arms under the modern assumption that "ohh they didn't mean automatic rifles"
Tell you what, the left stops fussing so much about guns, and we'll learn the original meaning of some quotes.

You mean like "a well regulated militia". Sure. Let's go back to that.

Every man must own a gun. Every able-bodied man must drill on Saturdays, 6am sharp. Those who don't show up get scourged.

Also if a house catches on fire and you don't answer the bell and show up for the fire line, we'll hang you. Also beat your wife, but only on the courthouse steps.

Oh yeah? Why don't you tell me what it means. Because I have actual quotes from the people who wrote the constitution explaining it in more detail, but I want to hear your version first.

[GloriousZote]

Ursprungligen skrivet av EnÐסGeÑe§¡§:

Ursprungligen skrivet av The Father ☯:

I've heard that claim multiple times but I don't see any genocide. Ever consider how the de-humanizing language of falsely claiming someone is a genocider is a very very good reason not to give even an inch when they also advocate restricting guns?

Did you look under your table? Under the bed? Still nothing? Figures.
Hard to imagine dehumanising something that never resembled the thing in the first place.

And still no proper answer from you...

[Xero_Daxter]

“Who needs an AR-15 anyways?”

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Xero_Daxter:

“Who needs an AR-15 anyways?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNEWXghq_4I

[Ulfrinn]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Xero_Daxter:

“Who needs an AR-15 anyways?”

Who needs free speech, or the a right to a fair trial?

[UtahGlazer3000]

Guns don't kill people people kill guns

[Xero_Daxter]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ulfrinn:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Xero_Daxter:

“Who needs an AR-15 anyways?”

Who needs free speech, or the a right to a fair trial?

My comment was a joke. Lol.

[saranacX]

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

[John]

We're locking this thread as it has devolved into non-productive argument. Thanks for your understanding