Isn't that just taking the guns away from the law-abiding? Like, criminals are unlikely to turn their illegal guns in. And you'd also have to repeal the 2nd amendment, which is, um, unlikely.

Collect the registered ones, confiscate the illegal ones over time. Stop selling ammo obv. Definitely a project for decades.

Highly unlikely, without a doubt.

I agree. You very likely would be in fear for your life, wishing you had a gun and not loling.

You don't necessarily have to repeal it, you just have to read the entire thing and come to a different conclusion about what it actually says:

I think it's fair to suggest that what precisely constitutes a "well regulated militia" is still as much a subject for debate as it ever was. A lot of people aren't even aware that clause exists. Then there's the matter of how "arms" are to be defined, which isn't a small point either when you consider the changes in weapondry in the 220+ years since the Bill of Rights was written.

A lot of people cite [the convenient portion of] the 2nd Amendment as some infallible guarantee with a single clear interpretation. There's no justification for that, even the Supreme Court is pretty split on it. There was a major case just a few years back. It ended in favor of gun rights, with 5 upholding and 4 dissenting.

I don't see a full on repeal of the 2nd Amendment ever happening in my lifetime, but there's definitely a lot that could change about how it's interpreted. Remember too that a lot of people advocating aspects of gun control aren't looking to extinguish them from private ownership completely, they're just looking for tighter regulation and restrictions than there are right now.

Do you think the founders wanted to assure the people that they'd be allowed to serve in the military? I think it's more likely they wanted to assure people that the government would not take their guns, given that the FIRST battle of the American Revolution happened because the British tried to do exactly that.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

I own a gun to defend my home and because I know the criminals already have one. Also in case there is ever a black swan event.

I would be sad if the government took it from me.

I think people are scared of guns because they have never fired one, or handled one, etc. I was amprehensive when I bought mine. Now its sits nice and loaded in the nightstand (no children, etc).

There are a million scenarios that I can think of that I would want a gun. I hope the majority of them don't ever occur, but honestly the handgun gives me peace of mind.

Nevertheless I do agree with many gun restrictions, like the ones we have now. I don't see the need for extended magazines, I believe in felon-restrictions, mentally-disabled restrictions, I don't mind waiting periods, licenses, etc.

As long as average Joe can obtain a handgun/shotgun/rifle to defend his home, concealed carry if desired, and/or hunt for game or shoot for sport I am okay with reasonable restrictions.

Isn't it pretty obvious this militia needs to be capable of killing government soldiers and agents in case they get out of hand?

Anyone else ever play with G.I. Joes when they were a kid? Hell maybe some of you still play with them. Anyway, remember the C.O.B.R.A soldiers?


Well I don't want to alarm anyone, but have you seen how our police are dressing lately?

If I were king-

shotguns- legal, with same condition as hunting rifle.

hunting rifles- legal unless you do something that would make a reasonable person think you shouldn't be allowed to own one anymore.

handguns- access restricted to the extent where they are almost banned, but you could still get a permit for one if you were like an armored car driver or something.

Assault Rifles- Illegal (As a caveat I seem to remember from my sporting clay class that the multi-round shotguns are mechanistically the same as assault rifles, but I'm sure some sort of redefinition could solve this issue)

If you read my entire post, you'd see that the top gun is available with a 20 round magazine, it's just not pictured. Even with the 20 rd mag, it still does not fall under the definition of "assault weapon"

This is an "assault weapon":



This isn't.


How in the world is the first gun (a .22 LR) more dangerous than the second gun (7.62 x 39)?

It's the same world where having a pistol grip makes a gun more scary because it could be fired from the hip...

OK, so it sounds like you have some data.

What was the UK gun crime rate before gun control was tightened up (I honestly don't know the answer to this question)?

The US has the longest border in the world to its north and the most frequently crossed border in the world to its south (over 12,000 Km of border in total). Arguments like "if our gun laws were just more like Britain" misses some important ways in which the U.S. can never be like Britain.

When did we "lose"? Seriously? You actually think there is a winner and a loser in any of these debates? That's incredibly laughable.