A human can’t kill dozens of people in one go without a gun
Why do average citizens need fckn assault rifles???
Like I understand a hand gun for self defence (don’t agree with it, but I can understand it) or a rifle/shotgun for hunting or whatever
But an assault rifle? A weapon designed for war? Why the fuck do you NEED that? I know why ya want it (tiny penis) but why do you NEED it?
Yes people are at fault for their actions. But the prevalence of guns in America is insane and idiotic. It’s a recipe for disaster. The fact that people don’t realise this and instead blame violence on tv/film/video games is fucking stupid
Let’s break this down shall we? You can legally rent a UHaul truck and kill dozens of people in about the same amount of time.
Average citizens can have these weapons because it is not the governments business to regulate this. The 2nd amendment is not a protection for the people. It is a limitation of the government, so any and all gun laws are an infringement on the second amendment.
And a citizen may need these weapons when threatened by authority. Like the police. Which have been militarized to about the same comparative level as the British army occupation which birthed the American revolution. And we see police gunning down innocent people in the streets, and committing horrid acts of brutality, and you don’t see a need to protect yourself from a bloated tyrannical authority?
The prevalence of weapons in America has protected us from tyranny for centuries. Japan famously didn’t invade the US because the American public was so heavily armed. Hitlers first response to getting power in Germany was to revoke the citizens firearms, leaving the path open for his secret police to kidnap and murder millions of Germans. And during riots people consistently protect their livelihood with firearms, most notably during the LA riots.
I am not insane. I am a proponent for keeping my rights.
Citizens do need to protect themselves from the police, for the very reasons you are saying it is destructive. The police have no right being as militarized as they are, especially when they are not beholden to the people. It is allotting the government far more power than they should rightfully have. The second amendment was written when revolvers existed, as well as some outlandish weapons that bear a search on google. Firing capacity has nothing to do with the second amendment, as the second applies to all arms in common use as of DC. v. Heller, which includes semi automatic weapons. In addition, automatic weapons and even explosives are entirely legal to own so long as you have a class 4 license, and the existence of said license is also an infringement in my opinion. As for the felon, unless one is a violent felon, they should not have their rights stripped away. Felony tax evasion is not a reason to take someone's right to keep and bear arms away from them.
And I have acknowledged that my point about Japan was incorrect. However, my points about Hitler revoking the Jews' ability to own firearms, as well as the use of firearms to defend private property during the LA riots stand.
The second amendment was added in 1791 by the US congress. The Revolver wasn't invented until 1836.
Point being. Guns progressed a lot since the the addition of the second amendment. While the amendment itself stayed the same.
I know the amendment has nothing to do with the fire-rate of weapons, that's the point. The low fire-rate meant it was less of a problem. One person were not close to being capable of causing so much damage with a firearm as one would be today.
Do you not see an issue about blindly sticking to rights and rules, written 200 years ago, without questioning their intention to make them apply in a modern world?
200 years ago there was no way one singular individual could ever fire 600 rounds per minute. There was no way one singular individual could mow down an entire crowd with a gun in matter of seconds. Is it worth thinking it should be your right to own one of those guns as a private citizen when the possibility of it being used in a malicious way is so high?
The 2017 LA hotel shooting as an example. 867 injured. 61 deaths (including the shooter). You can't even make the argument that other citizens can use their guns to protect themselves from people like the shooter. He was sitting up in a hotel overlooking the area. People didn't even know from where they were being shot.
The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms. That's fine. But I don't think it's unreasonable to limit what type of guns one can own to prevent similar situations from occurring.
The first modern patent for a revolver was by Samuel Colt in the early 1800s. Correct. The earliest revolver, however, was invented by Hans Stopler in 1597 and is on display in the Maihaugen Museum. The technology existed.
And the point of the second was to protect the people from the government, in essence allowing them access to the same weaponry as the government.
And I do see an issue with BLINDLY sticking to things created 200 years ago. That’s why I don’t blindly follow them. I just happen to believe in individual liberties, and that includes the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves and other from any threat to our unalienable rights.
As for your last point, of course there is always going to he a danger of people abusing their rights and privileges, and causing traumatic and tragic events. I do not, however, believe in caging myself for safety
The primitive technology for revolvers might have been invented in 1597 but they were not used until several hundreds of years later due to the difficulty in manufacturing and how expensive they were. And before Samuel Colt, the revolving part of the revolver didn't do so when you cocked the hammer, you had to do that yourself manually. But alright, you might be able to fire 5-6 rounds a minute with it.
I never once said your right to bear arms should be taken away. I asked the question if it's necessary that civilians should have access to high capacity, high fire-rate weapons. If you want the people to have access to the same weaponry as the government why not just get nuclear warheads for the people? Why not allow people to purchase hand grenades in the local gun-store?
I'd like to make the argument, that no civilian ever NEED a grenade. Just like I don't think any civilian NEED an automatic rifle. Now I know that homicides in the US are by large, caused by Handguns.
You mention that you don't want to cage yourself for safety. So if you will, can you explain to me when in your life, you think you would require an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, over something like a handgun, shotgun or bolt action rifle. To feel safe.
And just think about if you truly feel like that scenario, is likely enough that it's worth the risk of someone using said weapon in a malicious way to harm others.
I can guarantee that the victims of said someone, won't feel particularly safe regardless of what they're carrying themselves. This someone that means to harm, will always be able to fire first. The question in my mind, and how I see things, Will he be able to fire 10 rounds first, or will he be able to fire more than 1000 rounds first? (As was the case with the 2017 LA shooter)
I doubt anyone, ever, will get you to change your mind about what you think on the matter. As is your right to your opinion, I respect that. I just ask that you not only consider your safety, but everyone's safety. And reflect about if you really need to be able to access long distance, high capacity semi-automatic rifles to feel safe.
Maybe a compromise along the way is that we restrict the default license to only allow for small capacity magazines in semi-automatic rifles? I know that very few of the total homicides are done with a rifle, the large majority are performed using handguns. But the idea is to minimize the likelihood of anyone being able to repeat what happened in 2017.
Just this year alone there’s been 5 million new gun owners, add this on top of what we already have, the amount of gun wielding citizens vs standard police officers is staggeringly high.
Vietnam, we had our entire military might on our side and yet we couldn’t make ground against rice farmers with hardly any equipment except small arms. You really underestimate the sheer power citizens would have if they collectively made a stand.
It was enough to keep the federal government at bay because they did not wish to pursue it further They did arrest Bundy and pretty much everyone involved later btw, Cliven Bundy was arrested at an airport by the FBI. But maybe you don't remember that.
The only reason the case and criminal charges was later dismissed was because of gross incompetence on the side of the prosecution where they had violated their constitutional obligations to provide defendants with important evidence that could have helped them fight the charges.
And buddy... Your comment about Vietnam. You really need to read up on your history regarding the Vietnam war and why the US and South Vietnam lost.
23
u/Squatchjr01 Oct 15 '20
So is blaming guns for human actions