>

I’m not really sure what I am politically anymore, def not republican. It’s all just semantics to me at this point… at the end of the day I’m a regular dude. That wants to get home at night. And as a minority I don’t want my right to defend myself against racists and other extreme individuals messed with. people can still catch these hands any day tho. Lol
I have stopped trying to get people to understand that regulation, licensing and training requirements are the key to a safe gun loving country. These things don’t take away any rights, they just insure more responsibility and education. No one on the right wants to listen.  As a person who is trained and have a concealed carry permit I find myself carrying more often because I no longer trust my fellow citizens.  Gun safety is out the window in the US. >


I have stopped trying to get people to understand that regulation, licensing and training requirements are the key to a safe gun loving country. These things don’t take away any rights,

They do limit rights though. 
Just imagine your theory applied to any other Constitutional right.
Imagine if you had to take a weekend course on the nature of representative democracy and apply for a license before you were allowed to peaceably assemble, or exercise your freedom of speech, or if you had to take a test before you were allowed to vote (as has been tried in the Jim Crow South to disastrous results). Those would be laughed out of court as obvious infringements on one's constitutional rights.
Education and training about both democracy and firearms are indeed important, but making them a legal requirement before those rights can be exercised does indeed limit one's rights. >

You are applying absolutism. These are apples and oranges arguments. Unrestricted firearms infringe my rights to life and liberty. >


Unrestricted firearms infringe my rights to life and liberty.

No they don't >

Yes, they do. >

Not as long as insecure zealots continue to tie their fragile identities to guns >

We fear government overreach. You won't fear it until it's too late. >

Ohh like Ron DeSantis is doing in Florida suggesting a bill with makes trans people register themselves? Or preventing COVID death data from being published? >

There’s a difference between registering guns and registering people…right? 
Also I think people assume I’m talking about gun registration in a vacuum. I believe gun legislation accompanied by a universal basic income, single payer health insurance, and gun laws work together to protect the rights of gun owners, while also ensuring responsible ownership. They’re not mutually exclusive. >

every other developed nation has solved this >

There any many developed countries you can get guns in.  They have mass shootings, too.  Canada for one.  We just have more because we have poorer access to mental care and more lax gun laws. >


We just have more because we have poorer access to mental care

Mental health care in the US is actually among the best in the world.  
Go to Japan or India and see how non-existent their mental health care is.  Funny how it doesn't lead to mass shootings every month in those countries. 
Just more excuses. >

I said access.  Not quality.  It's expensive here.  And guns are not allowed in those countries. >


I said access. Not quality. It's expensive here.

If it's not available at all, then how expensive it is is irrelevant. 

And guns are not allowed in those countries.

Exactly.  That's the real reason.  A depressed and suicidal person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a boxcutter or steak knife. >

My post was comparing US to countries that allow guns.  Obviously, in countries w strict no gun laws, mass shooting will be almost nonexistent. >

But even in other countries that allow guns, they are tightly regulated and much harder to access.  No other country in the world has anywhere near the amount of guns the US does. >

That's what I said in my post. >

Then it seems we agree! >

Prices coming down. We're stocking up. >

This. Prices have been crazy for years. Now they are more reasonable. >

I miss the days when I could grab a 1200rd wooden case of HSM 5.56 ammo for $150. >

No. >

We’ve accepted Dead Kids are worth having access to guns. >

And you accept that freedom is worth giving up for safety. >

Yes, and may I ask, what freedoms do dead children get to exercise?
Edit: oh right none. I’m more than willing to give up or at least regulate personal freedoms which ensure future generations don’t have to practice shooting drills. >

Giving up Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of the Press along with the 2nd Amendment to a benevolent dictator will stop all child deaths be they gun violence or things such as childhood obesity. >

What a fucking title. It was not sufficient to claim that scary scary black rifles cause mass shootings, which is the most vapid, intellectually lazy nonsense ever conceived. Now bullet sales cause murders. This is obviously true because "bullet sales" have been typeset in the same sentence as "death totals" and "mass shootings". See the connection? The words are in close proximity. Can't you logic good? >

Background check requirements and quantity limits of some arbitrary number of cartridges at point of sale will somehow stop mass shooters.
Yet during their sprees, the vast majority fire a number of rounds still obtainable under various suggested purchase quantity limits.
Apparently, the unending parade of mass shooters who already pass a background check to purchase their firearm would be thwarted if only one more background check was done. >

"Laws don't work, so let's not have any laws!" >

"The laws we have don't work, so let's pass more laws that won't work." >


"The laws we have don't work, so let's pass more laws that won't work."

"The gun control will increase until morale improves" >

Go watch the daily show piece on Switzerland. Maybe if Americans could get their heads out of their asses then we might have a chance. But I doubt it. Everyone wants to cling on to a document we drafted when we didn’t want British rule. >

Short answer. No. Even if there was political will, the courts are so Stacked at this point it would never pass the first lawsuit. Maybe in 2 generations. Sorry generation after Z and the next. >

ANY restrictions on gun ownership is inherently anti-liberal, regressive, and a threat to democracy. How can anyone look at this country, look at the state of our police, look at the abuses of power our government commits daily, and say they should be the only ones with the means to defend themselves? >


ANY restrictions on gun ownership is inherently anti-liberal, regressive, and a threat to democracy. 

You're right, that's why America is the only democracy left in the world.  /s >

We should, at a bare minimum,  tax gun and ammo sales to pay for all health care costs from gun violence.  It's beyond obscene that shooting victims have to play the GoFundMe lottery to recieve adequate healthcare without going bankrupt. >

You haven’t thought this through. Taxing guns and ammo means that only the rich can defend themselves. >

That's the goal of Democrats >

It's so cute to see Republicans suddenly pretend to care about the poor when it comes to gun rights. >

Not all gun owners are republicans. People should be able to defend themselves. Not everyone lives in a suburb, some people live in rough cities. And I’m a democrat, lived in major cities my whole life. I was anti gun until I’ve been robbed at gun point, and jumped by some dick heads when me and my girl were just at the shore. I live in a city where police arrival time is over 7 mins if they come at all… this is the unfortunate truth about some people’s lives. I don’t wish to cause harm to anyone, but I have a wife and family members I need to get home to. >

Yep. I’m in the same boat. Not democrat, but definitely liberal. I became pro gun watching police gun people down and mercilessly beat people for no reason. I need to defend my family, from anyone including the government.