Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

[MikePrime]

If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".

How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.

There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.

Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.

So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?

And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?

When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.

even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.

 

[Phys251]

This thread will end well.

 

[MikePrime]

This thread will end well.

Of course. I see no other way it ends.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".

I would say even acknowledging terms like a salt weapon or gun violence or gun deaths is ceding ground. When someone mentions to that salt weapon ask them who's being assaulted. Because there is a such thing as an assault weapon if somebody clubs somebody over the head with a brick the brick is the assault weapon. You have to commit assault with it for it to be an assault weapon

How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.

It's not to control weapons or violence or anything. It is too disarm the law abiding so then you can violate the rights that's the only reason for it that's the only reason it's ever been implemented anywhere in history of humanity.

There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.

Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.

They don't care about this.

So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?

Legislation on gun ownership is the goal it's not the solution.

And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?

Use the ku Klux Klan interpretation of the Bill of Rights. It was shortly after the civil war they made the argument and you'll hear people making this argument today that gun ownership was not meant to be an individual right it was meant to be the people of the community collectively own guns this is so that the ku Klux Klan could Lynch black people without being shot at.

When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.

If they can't do that because if there's any solution besides gun control so you are wrong. So they will in fact make sure none of these problems are solved until they get their way. Or until they're overpowered legislatively.

even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.

 

[MikePrime]

I would say even acknowledging terms like a salt weapon or gun violence or gun deaths is ceding ground. When someone mentions to that salt weapon ask them who's being assaulted. Because there is a such thing as an assault weapon if somebody clubs somebody over the head with a brick the brick is the assault weapon. You have to commit assault with it for it to be an assault weapon

Yes most people dont realize that AR originated from armalite rifles, but ofcourse liberals dont get that.

Use the ku Klux Klan interpretation of the Bill of Rights. It was shortly after the civil war they made the argument and you'll hear people making this argument today that gun ownership was not meant to be an individual right it was meant to be the people of the community collectively own guns this is so that the ku Klux Klan could Lynch black people without being shot at.

I didn't understand the historically precedent for the democrat obsession with the interpretation that the 2nd amendment was meant for militias and not individuals as originating as an excuse for the kkk, that's fascinating and appears to be true, wowieee!!

 

[EthanB]

"Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control"​

You need a license to drive a car. You also need to buy insurance in case you get into an accident and cause damage; the insurance is to pay for damages that you have done. None of that is true with gun ownership.

 

[aociswundumho]

The left: "Trump will soon turn the USA into a dictatorship."

Also from the left: "Only the government should have guns."

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes most people dont realize that AR originated from armalite rifles, but ofcourse liberals dont get that.

I don't think people that talk about weapons being used for assault have enough knowledge to even know that we're talking about a rifle.

I didn't understand the historically precedent for the democrat obsession with the interpretation that the 2nd amendment was meant for militias and not individuals as originating as an excuse for the kkk, that's fascinating and appears to be true, wowieee!!

Yeah and US history gun control is the product of white supremacy. Some of that stuff was overturned as latest I think 2010 and the Heller decision I'm not 100% on that.

 

[MikePrime]

"Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control"​

You need a license to drive a car. You also need to buy insurance in case you get into an accident and cause damage; the insurance is to pay for damages that you have done. None of that is true with gun ownership.

You lost so you're playing a semantical game, i get it.
Are there federal mandated processes like background checks for buying a firearm and a string of other state requirements for getting ones?
Are there not limitations of the firing mode and type of weapon you can buy?

So you want American citizens to pay an insurance premium on owning a firearm?

 

[CLAX1911]

"Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control"​

You need a license to drive a car.

But you don't need a license to own a car. You can own a car and have someone else drive it.

And really you only need a license to drive a car on a roadway. That has more to do with the roadway because when you drive your car on it you are necessarily putting everyone around you in danger. When you're carrying a gun you're not. The act of driving a car would be the equivalent of firing a firearm and that's extraordinarily controlled. Further an environment where other people are using their guns at the same time is hunting grounds and you have to get a license to hunt in Texas you have to pass Hunters safety in order to get a license to hunt.

You also need to buy insurance in case you get into an accident and cause damage; the insurance is to pay for damages that you have done.

Not if you just keep your car in your garage. And you've only ever planned on taking it out if someone's life is in jeopardy.

None of that is true with gun ownership.

Every bit of it is true of a gun ownership and more. I can just leave my car in the street I can't do that with my firearm. I can drive my car around but concealed if you do that with your firearm it's called brandishing or menacing with a weapon. So there's actually a lot more restrictions regarding firearms and how you can use them in the public.

 

[rahl]

"Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control"​

You need a license to drive a car.

No you don’t. Just on public roads.

You also need to buy insurance in case you get into an accident and cause damage

No you don’t, unless you drive on public roads.

; the insurance is to pay for damages that you have done. None of that is true with gun ownership.

It’s not true for car ownership either.

 

[RF667799]

"Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control"​

You need a license to drive a car. You also need to buy insurance in case you get into an accident and cause damage; the insurance is to pay for damages that you have done. None of that is true with gun ownership.

None of that is true with car ownership.

 

[SkyChief]

"Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control"​

You need a license to drive a car. You also need to buy insurance in case you get into an accident and cause damage; the insurance is to pay for damages that you have done. None of that is true with gun ownership.

Well said.

I always cringe when people conflate the right to keep and bear arms with the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads. These are VERY different things and they should never be mentioned in the same sentence. (IMO)

 

[ataraxia]

The left: "Trump will soon turn the USA into a dictatorship."

Also from the left: "Only the government should have guns."

Yes- the state needs a monopoly on force. The alternative is unthinkable. If law enforcement is just one more gang among others fighting for domination, how do you expect them to do their job? What is to keep random criminal gangs from taking over?

In American democracy, the people have monopoly over that force, but under a system of checks and balances from the courts and a bill of rights. That’s the best system we have been able to come up with so far. How is anarchy (which is essentially the rule of the strong over the vulnerable) better?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Helix]

There are driving laws, but people still get in wrecks and break the law. The obvious solution is to have no traffic laws and turn our highways into Mad Max. I'm getting a Ford Falcon XB GT. Take that, libs!

 

[RF667799]

There are driving laws, but people still get in wrecks and break the law. The obvious solution is to have no traffic laws and turn our highways into Mad Max. I'm getting a Ford Falcon XB GT. Take that, libs!

Your analogy is flawed.

 

[Helix]

Your analogy is flawed.

Sounds like I'm in the right thread, then.

 

[RF667799]

Sounds like I'm in the right thread, then.

View attachment 67576391

Yeah post 6 was the typical duplicitous shit.

 

[Helix]

Yeah post 6 was the typical duplicitous shit.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[RF667799]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

You misspelled incredibly astute observation.

 

[Spock]

If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".


How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.

There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.

Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.

Why are you afraid of legislation that you seem to think is ineffective?
Turns out, those states (and countries) with stronger legislation tend to have less firearm violence.

So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?

Inadequate legislation is not effective legislation.

And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?

Heller (2008) was really the start of the "individual" right to firearms opinion. Previously it was generally treated as a right related to a militia.

When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.

Why does Canada and Australia have firearms and so much less firearm violence?

even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.

Handguns are probably the biggest problem in the USA.

 

[Helix]

You misspelled incredibly astute observation.

Uh huh. Have a nice day.

 

[RF667799]

Uh huh. Have a nice day.

You as well. Glad we could have this little talk.

 

[MikePrime]

Why are you afraid of legislation that you seem to think is ineffective?
Turns out, those states (and countries) with stronger legislation tend to have less firearm violence.

New Hampshire

Heller (2008) was really the start of the "individual" right to firearms opinion. Previously it was generally treated as a right related to a militia.

Its not the beginning of the interpretation that the 2nd amendment being for individuals, if you really think that youre ignorant on the subject. People have been able to individually own firearms since before the revolution, and individuals could own clippers with canons. There's nothing about the precedent of American gun ownership to insinuate that.
The idea that guns are for the militia originated from jim crow era polices that try to strengthen the kkk and make it hard for black American to arm themselves. 2008 was a long overdue clarification of what it has clearly always been.
You must think the founding fathers were pretty stupid if you think they really made an amendment for militias and then immediately let individuals own firearms during their presidencies.

Why does Canada and Australia have firearms and so much less firearm violence?

Culture, mental health, and drugs
Much smaller countries with a more homogenous society.

Handguns are probably the biggest problem in the USA.

They are in terms for firearm deaths.
What you responded to though was me saying that the left has zero focus on the effect of culture, mental health, and drugs and instead focuses 100% on "red state nuts" , which is an objectively bad take by the supposedly "educated party"

 

[Spock]

New Hampshire

Its not the beginning of the interpretation that the 2nd amendment being for individuals, if you really think that youre ignorant on the subject. People have been able to individually own firearms since before the revolution, and individuals could own clippers with canons. There's nothing about the precedent of American gun ownership to insinuate that.
The idea that guns are for the militia originated from jim crow era polices that try to strengthen the kkk and make it hard for black American to arm themselves. 2008 was a long overdue clarification of what it has clearly always been.
You must think the founding fathers were pretty stupid if you think they really made an amendment for militias and then immediately let individuals own firearms during their presidencies.

Culture, mental health, and drugs
Much smaller countries with a more homogenous society.

They are in terms for firearm deaths.
What you responded to though was me saying that the left has zero focus on the effect of culture, mental health, and drugs and instead focuses 100% on "red state nuts" , which is an objectively bad take by the supposedly "educated party"

Ok. You have established that you are unable to provide an argument without evidence to support your claims.
Try again with some substantiation. Canada and Australia have large populations that are diverse and socioeconomically as varied as the US with far less firearm violence. Read Heller. Prior to Heller, there was NO individual right recognized constitutionally apart from as necessary for service to the collective need of a people's militia. (https://afj.org/article/15-years-af...ng-chaos-but-theres-hope-for-gun-regulations/).

There was no intense discussion of 2A originally as personal right to a firearm and some argue that it was primarily included to pacify slave owner concerns for armed slave retrieval posses. There was certainly no interest in guaranteeing a human right to firearms that might then be owned by former slaves. The focus of 2A was for 200 years was to populate a militia as need by the government in war. That was supplanted by a standing army

Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Second Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

Throughout the US, ALL the various diverse states have firearm violence rates greater than Canada or Australia:

On gun violence, the United States is an outlier | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first for its high levels of gun violence.

www.healthdata.org