You assume the main purpose of me owning a firearm is to make me safe. It is only one of several benefits I get.

Assuming that the measures I put forth do not substantially lower the number of firearms violence and do not deter many criminals from commiting crimes with firearms.

Why wouldn't a criminal target someone definitely carrying an expensive item that can be easily and quickly sold?

Just Google it. It happens fairly often for such a rare thing as someone carrying open.

It isn't a benefit. It doesn't.

Hopefully you never have kids and die alone given the statistics on child deaths from guns in the home and spousal murders.

If you feel bad about that there is a way out that is on you and very very efficient.

Also for the record I legitimately think this should be classed as a crime for all involved.

You get robbed for your gun when open carrying you should go to prison.

You mean the justification for walking round with a machine designed to kill people attached to their belt ISN'T about safety!?

What would your, say top 5 reasons for owning a gun be? Try to be as honest. And it being in the constitution is not a reason to -want- one.

We already know how to fix the problem. Again, we have seen other countries solve theirs and have lower gun violence and suicides. It's not a great mystery, it's just a problem that people are very motivated not to solve.

I am on my phone and in a boat so I will address your points in the order which you put them forth.

Are the other 1st world countries rates of gun crime and death proportional to the number of guns in the country? Are their proportions of gun death/gun the same as ours?

If the answer is yes then the amount of guns in the U.S.is the problem right? How do you propose to lower the number of guns in the U.S.? How do you do this without infringing on citizens 2A rights?

If the answer is no to the proportinality then there are other factors at work.


To your second paragraph: We could have far fewer suicides and deaths if alcohol was more tightly controlled right? How did that work out the last time it was tried in this country? Why would cracking down on guns result in a different outcome?
Also do you mean to say that someone who is commiting suicide or tresspassing is not making a decision to do so? Who else is it on exactly? The property owner who gets tresspassed upon? I do not understand.

Skipped the first paragraph: How many young children are accidentaly killed by a firearm where another young child is at fault? I do not know the answer.

I know many young children, including mine when they were, that fire firearms quite a lot for various reasons. Would there be weapons available without your proposed child proofing mechanisms for these children or would it be mandated for all new firearms?

If your argument is against prohibition because we can't stop it, that's reasonable until you consider we prohibit drugs, prostitution, and a dozen other things that are rampant in our country.

I did not realize we were talking about handguns in particular. I have mentioned before in this thread that I do indeed believe we need to look at ways to curtail handgun violence in particular because it is by far the type of firearm that causes the most problems. The number of peoe openly carrying one on holsered on their sides contributing to that problem I suspect is beyond miniscule.

#1- Hunting and trapping, most of my firearms are geared to this purpose.
#2- Defense
#3- Target shooting
#4- Collecting

There are four off the top of my head.

Apart from stricter rules on which guns you can own and walking around in public with them, all of this is possible in the uk.

You don't even have to prohibit alcohol, just tax the cheap sh*t more and turn around and spend more on alcohol treatment programs to make it more difficult to become an alcoholic.

The US has 3 fundamental problems

1. The amount of guns in the US
2A. The ease with which to buy guns legally and the
2B. lack of consumer safety protections
3. The ease to obtain guns illegally

The 2nd amendment as it was created by the Supreme Court makes it difficult to resolve all three of these, except for 2B which the culture of an unbridled consumer right to consume guns prevents.

That's why no one really thinks that anything that comes up is actually going to solve the problem. Teaching youth to respect guns? Doesn't matter they'll still play with guns in a haphazard manner. After all they're kids. Longer prison sentences? Doesn't really work, it hasn't for other things. All of the things proposed won't solve the fundamental problems, they're just band aids because the main problems simply can't be addressed.

Doesn't that prove my point.

Possibe but tightly restricted.Does the UK have a right to possess arms spelled out in it's founding documents?

Jfc the knob slobbing that goes on over the founding fathers and their documents drives me ****ing crazy. It isn't 1776 anymore, we don't have to pretend that the **** they put down in that time has any relevance today

Very good points.

I would however disagree that the Supreme Court created the 2nd Amendment. The people who drew up the Constitution did that. The Supreme Court interpreted the 2A as protecting an individuals right to possess firearms.

Also, why do you believe that kids haphazardly play with guns so often? I never did and neither did anyone else that I know of personally. Of course I was shown the consequences of what happens upon pulling the trigger and it was impressed upon me that once the trigger was pulled there is no taking it back.

There is no way to legislate responsible parenting.

Ok so which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights other than #2 do you believe to be irrelevant?

There is a process for amending the Constitution laid out within it. Maybe the gun control crowd should get to work on that process.

Or is that process now irrevent too?

Let's say a group of people think the 4A is irrelevent. That isn't so far from the truth. Should they be able to circumvent 4A without going through the procees outlined in the Constitution? If so where does it end. How long before the whole Constitution is broken down?

And before the whole slaves being 3/5th of a person thing is brought up, slavey was not protected in the Bill of Rights and when they abolished slavey they amended the Constitution to do so.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Excellent post! It coincides with my response above on amending the Constitution.

Of course the amendment process is irrelevant now. Name one issue, any issue at all that would get a 2/3 majority vote in both houses and ratification. I'll wait.

The last time we amended the constitution was to allow women the right to vote... 100 years ago. And THAT somehow took us 150 years to do in the first place which is ****ing insane.

And no, people shouldn't be able to circumvent the constitution. The constitution should however be able to be adjusted and reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted if something is obsolete.

The process to amend the constitution is not viable. We may never pass another amendment with the way the country is and the requirements for passing an amendment are.

How do you propose to make those adjustments?

What potential amendmemts have been brought up and voted down since womens suffrage?

It is too hard to do legally so we will find a way to do it illegally is not a valid response.

It is so hard to the amend the Constitution because the founders did not want it to be amended on a whim.

I happen to agree with them.

The founders also lived in a country of 4 million reasonably homogeneous people, with only 13 states and a Congress a small fraction of its current size.

That is completely irrelevent as far as I am concerned.

So you guys just want to make the Constitution where it can be changed just because the powers that be at the time don't like the law as written?

Seems insane to me.

When I took an oath to defend the Constitution I am pretty sure it was understood that it was the Constitution as is not as I wished it to be.