>

You can’t make this up. 😞
Up to three now. >

What's the third? >

“No way to prevent this,” says only country where this happens. >

Gun ownership should not be a right, but allowable by law. >

Interestingly enough, the second amendment was not about personal protection or about overthrowing a government gone bad but was actually about creating militias to put down slave revolts >

Everyone ignores the militia part. A militia is technically something called up by the state or government. Until then, it's just a group of dudes who like bang-bang machines a lot...

Militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. >

Your state’s National Guard is the well regulated militia  they are speaking of. This is really the thing everyone ignores. A bunch of good ole boys playing dress up in the woods and holding meetings at TGI Fridays isn’t the militia the constitution means. >

Exactly right. >

If Newsome was a republican, he'd be playing golf while his constituents were exercising their second amendment rights. >

Is there a problem with people using their rights? >

The 2nd Amendment gives people the right to own a gun. Not to shoot a gun. Hence, discharging a firearm for no good reason is a crime. Unfortunately, this law doesn't protect the victim. >

Nope. The Second Amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a state militia. 
So my question for all these second amendment folks, are you in a state militia? No? Okay then let’s start regulating this shit because it’s KILLING THE REST OF US! >

That's not whatv the people who wrote it said.  I think I'll go by what they said instead of what reddit said it means. >

2A was written by a bunch of 18th century politicians trying to run a fledgling country that could not afford to have a professional army. 
The current interpretation is a fanfic. >

It's not an interpretation.  It's what they said contemporaneously. >

It’s almost as if things that were engineered to kill other things will, when used on people, also kill them >

They were literally designed to kill people. These are not hunting rifles. >

Almost 100% of guns were and are designed to kill people.  That argument is so fucking dumb.  You think deer hunting rifles just sprang out of nowhere specifically to hunt deer?  That hunting rifle pappy uses is almost certainly based off of some bolt action design from WW1 or WW2 if it isn't just the same thing with updated furniture to make it lighter.  Before semi auto rifles become popular what do you think was the difference between the bolt action 30-06 pappy used for hunting deer and the bolt action 30-06 pappy used at Verdun to fight the Germans?
None whatsoever.  
Outside of target pistols and rifles that fire extremely small projectiles specifically meant for target shooting, basically every gun even muzzle loaders was designed to kill people. >

I hear what you're saying, but I think the distinction is where some guns are designed in such a way as to be better at killing people at the cost of being good at doing other things. 
Not that different from what you're saying but I think the point is that certain weapons are optimized and intended for use against people in a more human oriented setting (in a building vs in the woods), while others are optimized for hunting animals but can, of course, be used against people. >


I hear what you're saying, but I think the distinction is where some guns are designed in such a way as to be better at killing people at the cost of being good at doing other things.

But what are those other things they do not as well?  An AR can hunt a deer as well or even better than a bolt action can because of the modular nature of it.  There is little you can not customize on a modern semi automatic rifle to set it up to suit any need perfectly.  Modern bolt action rifles are not remotely as modular and therefore not remotely as good as modern semi automatic rifles in the same way that a muscle car from the 1960s while looking cooler can not compete in performance with a modern sports car.  And as such wouldn't you want a more modular rifle that can do more things than having to have multiple rifles specifically setup for specific tasks?  
I mean sporks exist for a reason right?  Just think of the AR15 and modern semi auto rifles as being like sporks.  You sacrifice the specialization of an individual tools for the utility of a single multitool. >

A spork isn't as good as a spoon or a fork at what spoons do or at what forks do respectively. The whole thing you described is what I was talking about. The utility of a single multitool comes at the cost of no longer being specialized for any single purpose. Nobody is preparing dinner with a Swiss Army Knife. 
Cost also is a significant factor. A tank may be great for killing deer, but that doesn't make it the best option for your average hunter.
edit: Also wait, your argument is "it's dumb to say we should maybe look at getting rid of these guns because ALL guns are designed to kill people, not just THESE guns!"? Because I don't necessarily disagree but ignoring how GOOD some guns are at killing people is goofy, and also I would use that argument to suggest we should probably take a look at removing all kinds of guns but I don't know if that's the point you're trying to make. >

This is a uniquely American news. >

Not stabby enough for European news huh? >

All countries have violence...not all have the same ability to kill 10 people in 45 seconds. 
 Unlike knives, guns have one purpose,  and one purpose only. I can build items with a knife. Prepare supper. 1000 uses, beyond killing. 
 Yes. If someone is dead set on murdering people,  there are many options.  None quite as easily applied as a semiautomatic weapon however. 
 Its why its our primary tool for warfare. 
Not swords, spears,  or knives. Multiple 
High velocity projecriles. >

More blood for the blood god. Praise the second! Through you all things are possible. >

Praise 👏 >

Newsom should propose a law similar to Texas’ abortion law where people can sue others in civil court for owning a gun.  If republicans want to act like the Texas law is just fine, then they can take their medicine with a similar California law for guns. >

That is a great idea.  I wish he would do that. >

For me 2nd amendment was constructed to protect us against a trump. That guy was close to being a dictator. >

Yeah, but it was almost used to install him as a dictator. That sword cuts both ways. >

Fair. I’m sure rational people could find a solve for both but rational people don’t run for office because oligarchs hire them so oh well. >

2nd amendment is one of the most misinterpreted pieces of law that exists. And it is that way because of a combination of gun/ammo profits and a fantasy that is sold to American men where they have to transform into freedom fighters against a tyrannical government that has nukes/satellites/aircraft. It’s a fantasy and a delusion and Americans keep paying the price for it with their lives and the fear of getting shot up at their school/mall/workplace by any rando with a death wish. >


a fantasy that is sold to American men where they have to transform into freedom fighters against a tyrannical government

Not the mention the absurdity of the idea that the people who decide what is and is not a tyrannical government should be "people that own guns".  And the harsh reality is the majority of gun owners in modern America are more likely to support the tyranny than be against it.  We have more to fear of democracy leading the country away from where they want it to be and them reacting as armed insurrectionists/terrorists. >

The fact that the government doesn’t have to be tyrannical is damning to this idea. >

...see, this how you know we've got a severe problem in this country when it comes to gun violence. >

COMMUNIST! ANTIFA! ELECTRIC STOVE PEDDLER!
/s >

It is only going to get worse -- more gun related violence, more mass killings. We are are at \~400M guns now. Guess what will be happening when the total number of firearms in the US eclipses 500M, 600M, 700M. 
The public won't blink an eye when 10 or 20 of these killings happen each day. >

Especially with 3D printed guns entering the under-the-table market, I fear the next few years are going to be violent and messy in North America. >

Seems like he can’t even breathe. r/usmassshootings >

Now is not the time to talk about gun control…..because we can’t hear each other over all of that dang gun fire. >

And once again the kookoos will come out in full force about gun companies, gun lobbyists and gun owners as the ones who are the real victims whom should be mourned. >

Nearly Half of GOP Accept Mass Shootings as 'Part of a Free Society
Republicans really don't give a fuck if you die or kids die as long as they get their toys. >

We are a joke >

As in a tiny fraction of the population that resorts to this kind of behavior, yes. >

And the fact that we do NOTHING about it. Not just a tiny fraction of the US. Anyone who agrees with the 2A as currently interpreted is a joke. >

Why was the 2nd amendment created? >

Do you really not know, or are you trying to be argumentative? >

I know but people forget the original intent. >

Tell me you’re American without telling me you’re American. >

We have access to incredible healthcare, and thanks to insurance it only cost $561,783.05, as opposed to the $223,406,112.93 the hospital originally quoted me. >

You received a quote?! >

You’re right, sorry, “billed”