No 2A = A nation of lemmings cowering in their own homes

[InWalkedBud]

(formerly) Great Britain: an illustration of ceding personal responsibility to Big Bro

...Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom. The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant...

A sewer full of asinine assumptions. Maybe the intruder just wants your stuff. Or maybe your life. Or maybe your wife's life, or body. Ditto your kids' lives or bodies, maybe. The reality is the criminal's motives are unknown to all but the criminal himself.

The reason Brits coddle criminals at the expense of their victims is simple: the law-abiding have been systematically disarmed by the government, empowering Big Bro alone to make those calls on behalf of the great unwashed. The result: once-Great Britain is now a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks. We uncultured rubes on this side of the pond have embraced the opposite proposition: we prefer turning criminals into victims, and we have the law on our side.

 

[ataraxia]

(formerly) Great Britain: an illustration of ceding personal responsibility to Big Bro

...Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom. The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

People who advocate for gun control would be OK with these measures which have been proven to help. You can still sleep with a handgun by your nightstand if you really want.

Several gun regulations have been studied and shown to reduce firearm deaths or violent crime: (from ChatGPT):

---

1. Permit-to-Purchase (PTP) Laws​

• Description: Require individuals to obtain a license or permit from law enforcement before purchasing a firearm, often with background checks and sometimes fingerprinting.
• Evidence:
  • Connecticut (1995): Implementing a PTP law was associated with a 40% reduction in firearm homicide.
  • Missouri (2007 repeal): Repealing its PTP law was associated with a 25% increase in firearm homicide.
  • (Source: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research)

---

2. Universal Background Checks​

• Description: Mandate background checks for all gun sales, including private and gun show sales.
• Evidence:
  • States with stricter background checks tend to have lower rates of gun homicide and suicide.
  • Universal background checks are most effective when combined with PTP laws.
  • (Source: JAMA, The Lancet, Journal of Urban Health)

---

3. Red Flag Laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders)​

• Description: Allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others.
• Evidence:
  • In Connecticut and Indiana, red flag laws have been linked to reductions in firearm suicides.
  • May also help prevent mass shootings, although data here is more limited.
  • (Source: Psychiatric Services, Annals of Internal Medicine)

---

4. Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws​

• Description: Penalize gun owners who fail to store firearms safely, particularly when children could access them.
• Evidence:
  • Associated with reductions in unintentional shootings and suicides among children.
  • More stringent CAP laws (e.g., requiring locked storage) are more effective.
  • (Source: Pediatrics, Journal of the American Medical Association)

---

5. Firearm Waiting Periods​

• Description: Require a delay between purchasing and receiving a firearm.
• Evidence:
  • Waiting periods are linked to decreases in gun suicides and homicides, likely by reducing impulsive acts.
  • One study estimated 51 fewer gun homicides per month nationwide if all states had waiting periods.
  • (Source: PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

---

6. Restrictions on High-Risk Individuals​

• Description: Laws that prohibit firearm possession by individuals with certain histories (e.g., domestic violence, mental health adjudication).
• Evidence:
  • Domestic violence firearm prohibitions reduce intimate partner homicide rates.
  • Closing loopholes in these laws increases their effectiveness.
  • (Source: Annals of Internal Medicine, American Journal of Public Health)

---

7. High-Capacity Magazine Bans and Assault Weapon Restrictions​

• Evidence:
  • Evidence on overall crime reduction is mixed.
  • However, these bans may reduce casualties in mass shootings.
  • (Source: RAND Corporation, Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery)

 

[Gozaburo]

A sewer full of asinine assumptions. Maybe the intruder just wants your stuff. Or maybe your life. Or maybe your wife's life, or body. Ditto your kids' lives or bodies, maybe. The reality is the criminal's motives are unknown to all but the criminal himself.

The reason Brits coddle criminals at the expense of their victims is simple: the law-abiding have been systematically disarmed by the government, empowering Big Bro alone to make those calls on behalf of the great unwashed. The result: once-Great Britain is now a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks. We uncultured rubes on this side of the pond have embraced the opposite proposition: we prefer turning criminals into victims, and we have the law on our side.

I own guns and consider the right to defend yourself with adequate, modern weaponry to be as important as any other right, but it's true that many of the Second Amendment bros are LARPing dweebs acting out a power fantasy.

I think most men have at one time or another had some power fantasy where they assert themselves, perhaps violently, over an intruder or aggressor and blow them away figuratively or literally. It's probably in our biology and that's a good thing. The distinction here is that this tendency needs to be civilized, not mythologized to the point that it becomes some outrageous power fantasy. The discourse has become so absurd that you have fat libertarian kids talking about resisting the US government as-if they wouldn't just get blown up by a drone the second they opened their mouth.

Liberals are just directionally correct when they say we should speak less about gun rights and more about how we can create a society which is civilized enough that you don't need to walk around strapped up all of the time.

 

[Grand Mal]

(formerly) Great Britain: an illustration of ceding personal responsibility to Big Bro

...Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom. The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant...

A sewer full of asinine assumptions. Maybe the intruder just wants your stuff. Or maybe your life. Or maybe your wife's life, or body. Ditto your kids' lives or bodies, maybe. The reality is the criminal's motives are unknown to all but the criminal himself.

The reason Brits coddle criminals at the expense of their victims is simple: the law-abiding have been systematically disarmed by the government, empowering Big Bro alone to make those calls on behalf of the great unwashed. The result: once-Great Britain is now a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks. We uncultured rubes on this side of the pond have embraced the opposite proposition: we prefer turning criminals into victims, and we have the law on our side.

What must it be like to live with that kind of fear all your life.

There's something pathetically cowardly about grown men saying they need to be armed for their protection and denying far more vulnerable 14 year old girls the same right.

 

[dmpi]

All my properties have alarms system. When that thing goes off and you have to get to your home and check it out, its a bit scary. I don't have a carry permit so I'm unarmed. Latter I got cameras so I can see what's going on. That helps a lot. The real solution to all this is get criminals into jail and keep them there.

 

[InWalkedBud]

I own guns and consider the right to defend yourself with adequate, modern weaponry to be as important as any other right, but it's true that many of the Second Amendment bros are LARPing dweebs acting out a power fantasy.

I think most men have at one time or another had some power fantasy where they assert themselves, perhaps violently, over an intruder or aggressor and blow them away figuratively or literally. It's probably in our biology and that's a good thing. The distinction here is that this tendency needs to be civilized, not mythologized to the point that it becomes some outrageous power fantasy. The discourse has become so absurd that you have fat libertarian kids talking about resisting the US government as-if they wouldn't just get blown up by a drone the second they opened their mouth.

Liberals are just directionally correct when they say we should speak less about gun rights and more about how we can create a society which is civilized enough that you don't need to walk around strapped up all of the time.

Any suggestions?

 

[SkyChief]

People who advocate for gun control would be OK with these measures which have been proven to help. You can still sleep with a handgun by your nightstand if you really want.

Several gun regulations have been studied and shown to reduce firearm deaths or violent crime: (from ChatGPT):
1. Permit-to-Purchase (PTP) Laws
2. Universal Background Checks
3. Red Flag Laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders)
4. Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws
5. Firearm Waiting Periods
6. Restrictions on High-Risk Individuals
7. High-Capacity Magazine Bans and Assault Weapon Restrictions

The problem is that all of these statutes infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms. Each one is in violation of Amendment II, which explicitly states that "the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

 

[ataraxia]

The problem is that all of these statutes infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms. Each one is in violation of Amendment II.

First of all, no they are not. For example, how are child access prevention laws in violation of Amendment II? You think this is what the founding fathers had in mind with the 2A?



Second of all, the Amendment II is a dangerously outdated and obsolete law. It just needs to go and we start from scratch like other civilized nations.

 

[CLAX1911]

I own guns and consider the right to defend yourself with adequate, modern weaponry to be as important as any other right, but it's true that many of the Second Amendment bros are LARPing dweebs acting out a power fantasy.

Like who?

I think most men have at one time or another had some power fantasy where they assert themselves, perhaps violently, over an intruder or aggressor and blow them away figuratively or literally. It's probably in our biology and that's a good thing. The distinction here is that this tendency needs to be civilized, not mythologized to the point that it becomes some outrageous power fantasy. The discourse has become so absurd that you have fat libertarian kids talking about resisting the US government as-if they wouldn't just get blown up by a drone the second they opened their mouth.

I'm not sure drones have that kind of pinpoint accuracy.

Liberals are just directionally correct when they say we should speak less about gun rights and more about how we can create a society which is civilized enough that you don't need to walk around strapped up all of the time.

But they do everything in their power to make sure that can't happen bye no bail release from jail failure to prosecute people for crimes.

 

[CLAX1911]

What must it be like to live with that kind of fear all your life.

And I like having a fire extinguisher I mean is that living in fear that you might catch on fire?

There's something pathetically cowardly about grown men saying they need to be armed for their protection and denying far more vulnerable 14 year old girls the same right.

Well 14 years old girls are supposed to have fathers. Saying they can't be protected by their fathers is far more cowardly.

 

[Gozaburo]

But they do everything in their power to make sure that can't happen bye no bail release from jail failure to prosecute people for crimes.

I don't disagree that the liberal desire to govern the US as if it were a Nordic country (without context) isn't just ignorant, but totally uninspired and boring. That said, at least they're idealistic thinkers.

I'm not sure drones have that kind of pinpoint accuracy.

Many dead Russians disagree. Or rather they would if they weren't dead.

Like who?

Pretty much every person I know who is zealously passionate about the 2A is like this, obnoxiously so.

 

[CLAX1911]

Any suggestions?

Harsh penalties for criminal offense no parole for any violent offense. Any violent offense you can't get bailed out or released on your own recognizance.

You know the absolute opposite of what Democrats are doing.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't disagree that the liberal desire to govern the US as if it were a Nordic country (without context) isn't just ignorant, but totally uninspired and boring. That said, at least they're idealistic thinkers.

The liberal ideal should be as many freedoms and rights as possible. That's what liberal means.

Many dead Russians disagree. Or rather they would if they weren't dead.

How many of these were pinpointed individuals or killed in bombings? If we come to a point where the government is just bombing random cities because someone says something it's Time for absolute violence.

Pretty much every person I know who is zealously passionate about the 2A is like this, obnoxiously so.

What do you mean zealous about rights how is that a thing?

 

[ataraxia]

Harsh penalties for criminal offense no parole for any violent offense. Any violent offense you can't get bailed out or released on your own recognizance.

You know the absolute opposite of what Democrats are doing.

So we already have laws against killing people. Why do we need traffic lights too?

 

[SkyChief]

First of all, no they are not. For example, how are child access prevention laws in violation of Amendment II? You think this is what the founding fathers had in mind with the 2A?

That's a really lame argument, and you know very well that the 2A doesn't make provisions with laws promoting child safety with firearms. It only says that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Child access prevention laws require a gun owner to jump through legal hoops to legally own his or her firearm(s). It's an infringement, and the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits ALL infringements.

Second of all, the Amendment II is a dangerously outdated and obsolete law. It just needs to go and we start from scratch like other civilized nations.

The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere. Our country was FOUNDED on the principles that citizens have the right to free speech (Amendment I) and the inalienable right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II).

 

[Grand Mal]

And I like having a fire extinguisher I mean is that living in fear that you might catch on fire?

No, accidents happen. Living in fear of someone else hurting you is different. You're either a fearful person or, if your fears are justified, you're living in the wrong place.

Well 14 years old girls are supposed to have fathers. Saying they can't be protected by their fathers is far more cowardly.

Well, that's pretty dumb. Do you think that fathers follow their teen-age daughters around protecting them?

 

[Grand Mal]

That's a really lame argument, and you know very well that the 2A doesn't make provisions with laws promoting child safety with firearms. It only says that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Child access prevention laws require a gun owner to jump through legal hoops to legally own his or her firearm(s). It's an infringement, and the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits ALL infringements.


The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere. Our country was FOUNDED on the principles that citizens have the right to free speech (Amendment I) and the inalienable right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II).

A teenager is just as much a citizen as an adult. Does the second amendment protect a teenagers right or are age restrictions an acceptable infringement?

 

[CLAX1911]

No, accidents happen. Living in fear of someone else hurting you is different.

Who's living in fear?

You're either a fearful person or, if your fears are justified, you're living in the wrong place.

Well yeah I could just crack open another $50 million and move wherever I want right.

Well, that's pretty dumb. Do you think that fathers follow their teen-age daughters around protecting them?

So if this was what you were talking about what the hell does it have to do with gun ownership are there a lot of lawful gun owners just attacking teenage girls or something is this what it's like where you live?

 

[JMB1911A1]

People who advocate for gun control would be OK with these measures which have been proven to help. You can still sleep with a handgun by your nightstand if you really want.

Several gun regulations have been studied and shown to reduce firearm deaths or violent crime: (from ChatGPT):

AI produced GIGO.

1. Permit-to-Purchase (PTP) Laws​

• Description: Require individuals to obtain a license or permit from law enforcement before purchasing a firearm, often with background checks and sometimes fingerprinting.
• Evidence:
  • Connecticut (1995): Implementing a PTP law was associated with a 40% reduction in firearm homicide.
  • Missouri (2007 repeal): Repealing its PTP law was associated with a 25% increase in firearm homicide.
  • (Source: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research)

PTPs have their roots in Jim Crow era laws which allowed Southern Democrats to prevent blacks from having firearms to protects themselves from the Klan. Np thanks.

2. Universal Background Checks

• Description: Mandate background checks for all gun sales, including private and gun show sales.
• Evidence:
  • States with stricter background checks tend to have lower rates of gun homicide and suicide.
  • Universal background checks are most effective when combined with PTP laws.
  • (Source: JAMA, The Lancet, Journal of Urban Health)

Unconstitutional at the Federal level for intrastate sales between private parties. Up to the state.

3. Red Flag Laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders)​

• Description: Allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others.
• Evidence:
  • In Connecticut and Indiana, red flag laws have been linked to reductions in firearm suicides.
  • May also help prevent mass shootings, although data here is more limited.
  • (Source: Psychiatric Services, Annals of Internal Medicine)

No due process. No thanks.

4. Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws

• Description: Penalize gun owners who fail to store firearms safely, particularly when children could access them.
• Evidence:
  • Associated with reductions in unintentional shootings and suicides among children.
  • More stringent CAP laws (e.g., requiring locked storage) are more effective.
  • (Source: Pediatrics, Journal of the American Medical Association)

After the fact law that does nothing. Unless you get rid of 4A and allow cops into homes. Is that what you want?

5. Firearm Waiting Periods​

• Description: Require a delay between purchasing and receiving a firearm.
• Evidence:
  • Waiting periods are linked to decreases in gun suicides and homicides, likely by reducing impulsive acts.
  • One study estimated 51 fewer gun homicides per month nationwide if all states had waiting periods.
  • (Source: PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

As soon as buy one gun, the reasoning behind this law is invalidated. So, once again, no thanks.

6. Restrictions on High-Risk Individuals​

• Description: Laws that prohibit firearm possession by individuals with certain histories (e.g., domestic violence, mental health adjudication).
• Evidence:
  • Domestic violence firearm prohibitions reduce intimate partner homicide rates.
  • Closing loopholes in these laws increases their effectiveness.
  • (Source: Annals of Internal Medicine, American Journal of Public Health)

Already the law. Look up Lautenberg Amendment.

7. High-Capacity Magazine Bans and Assault Weapon Restrictions​

• Evidence:
  • Evidence on overall crime reduction is mixed.
  • However, these bans may reduce casualties in mass shootings.
  • (Source: RAND Corporation, Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery)

MAY REDUCE. In other words, you are guessing and just want to infringe on my rights. No thanks.

 

[SavannahMann]

(formerly) Great Britain: an illustration of ceding personal responsibility to Big Bro

...Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom. The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant...

A sewer full of asinine assumptions. Maybe the intruder just wants your stuff. Or maybe your life. Or maybe your wife's life, or body. Ditto your kids' lives or bodies, maybe. The reality is the criminal's motives are unknown to all but the criminal himself.

The reason Brits coddle criminals at the expense of their victims is simple: the law-abiding have been systematically disarmed by the government, empowering Big Bro alone to make those calls on behalf of the great unwashed. The result: once-Great Britain is now a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks. We uncultured rubes on this side of the pond have embraced the opposite proposition: we prefer turning criminals into victims, and we have the law on our side.

You know, Trump's Federal Agents and National Guard have arrested 33 people on firearms charges in Washington DC. I wonder how many of those charges were owning a firearm without a permit?

 

[ElChupacabra]

I own guns and consider the right to defend yourself with adequate, modern weaponry to be as important as any other right, but it's true that many of the Second Amendment bros are LARPing dweebs acting out a power fantasy.

I think most men have at one time or another had some power fantasy where they assert themselves, perhaps violently, over an intruder or aggressor and blow them away figuratively or literally. It's probably in our biology and that's a good thing. The distinction here is that this tendency needs to be civilized, not mythologized to the point that it becomes some outrageous power fantasy. The discourse has become so absurd that you have fat libertarian kids talking about resisting the US government as-if they wouldn't just get blown up by a drone the second they opened their mouth.

Liberals are just directionally correct when they say we should speak less about gun rights and more about how we can create a society which is civilized enough that you don't need to walk around strapped up all of the time.

This.

 

[The Brad Dad]

The problem is that all of these statutes infringe on the Right to keep and bear arms. Each one is in violation of Amendment II, which explicitly states that "the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Arms = muskets.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Who's living in fear?

Everyone who needs a gun to go food shopping.

 

[RF667799]

Everyone who needs a gun to go food shopping.

Why do they need a gun?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Arms = muskets.