Nobody is trying to do away with the 2nd amendment, but...

[Kajun Gal]

I do think semi-automatic weapons should be banned except for like army personnel...

And background checks really wouldn't hurt...

If you need to hunt with a semi-automatic weapon then you really aren't a very good hunter and perhaps should NOT hunt. I mean, the deer ain't gonna be worth eating after being blown to bits!

[vercetti2021]

1. It needs to be changed

The founding fathers didn't expect automatic assault rifles. It needs to be redone for our current age.

[quartz007]

46. The gun Nikolas Cruz used...

was not "automatic" is what I am hearing from experts.

[vercetti2021]

47. Semi...automatic

Don't care. Assault rifle is an assault rifle

[Bleacher Creature]

2. I'd have no problem getting rid of it.

It's antiquated and has no relevance in today's society. It's also been wildly misconstrued.

At a minimum, it needs to be amended.

[quartz007]

29. I grew up without 2nd amendment

and it was very difficult for civilians to buy a gun in India.
But the criminal gangs all have guns!

[kacekwl]

48. Probably bought from American

source.

[quartz007]

49. or Switzerland or former Soviet colonies

Switzerland has same thing as our 2nd Amendment.

[hunter]

56. Switzerland has mandatory military service for all able bodied men.

If you fuck that up, if you have a criminal record, if you have certain mental health issues, if you are a citizen of certain nations, then you don't get a permit. Even if you are clean you must *request* a permit and the local authorities who are under no obligation to grant it. The bureaucracy is pretty thick. You have to keep receipts and contracts for all your weapons and ammunition, detailed contracts for private gun sales etc.. It's not legal without the permits and papers.

Per capita gun ownership in Switzerland is 25 per 100, in the U.S.A. it's 100 per 100, but that doesn't mean everyone in the U.S.A. has a gun. A gun owner in Switzerland might have one gun. A gun owner in the U.S.A. might have four or more.

The NRA and gun manufacturers know most U.S. Americans have no interest in guns, and many abhor guns, so they pump up the existing base of gun owners to buy more guns. Criminals and psychopaths here in the U.S.A. have no problem getting guns and ammunition, there's always plenty of "responsible" gun owners to steal guns from, and plenty of gun dealers who wouldn't be allowed to sell candy in Switzerland, let alone guns.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

Second amendment boosters who imagine themselves defending our nation against invaders are morons. Russia came here and shit all over the place without firing a shot, purchasing the groveling complicity of the NRA for peanuts.

[quartz007]

57. Yap, there are too damn many guns

floating around unregistered in US. It is too late to find all of them and take them away. Law breakers ignore gun restrictions. Mass shooters ignore gun restrictions at schools, movie theaters, college campuses etc.

[hunter]

61. No, it's not hopeless.

Destroying guns starts at home. A cheap angle grinder from Harbor Freight works wonders.

[quartz007]

85. Huh?

The millions of American gun owners are very protective of their guns. What makes you think they will voluntarily destroy their guns? These people contribute to NRA regularly and keep it a potent force in elections, and most democratic politicians even are unwilling to take NRA on.

[Gabi Hayes]

58. THANK YOU!

Ever read John McPhee’s book about Switzerland?

Covers this quite well

Also, pretty much legal heroin there, with basically no more OD deaths, after suffering pandemic for years

[Hoyt]

101. Yeah, but in Switzerland you have to keep the rifle locked up, hardly any public toting,

ammo is restricted, etc. Their gun laws are nowhere near as lax as ours.

[quartz007]

112. Correct. Our lax gun laws for 225 years

have made it possible for 400 million firearms in hands of Americans. There are too many guns already! We can not search and locate all these millions of guns many in hands of law breakers. Heck we can not even locate the 11 million illegal immigrants who have broken immigration laws.

Sadly, we Americans have to defend ourselves against gun toting criminals. Because it takes 10-15 minutes for cops to respond at the scene after a phone call to 911.

[flamin lib]

3. According to Heller v DC the second does not cover any gun at any time for any purpose and

ownership can be limited by any government entity.

It would be entirely within the second amendment to ban the import, manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of any semi-automatic firearm of any type, long or short, for civilian use.

It can be done under current law. It should be done under current law.

[Phoenix61]

8. Yes! +1,000 nt

[quartz007]

53. Stark Naked Ugly truth about guns..

Besides United States, I know of only one other country where civilians can openly purchase firearms, which is Switzerland.

The problem in USA with firearms is that 2nd Amendment is 200+ years old. Result is there are as many as 400-500 million guns lurking in civilian hands.

The stark naked ugly truth is there are TOO MANY GUNS IN TOO MANY HANDS. And majority are UNREGISTERED.

If we have no way to locate 20 million illegals, how can we search and locate more guns than there are people in USA?

If guns are made illegal or difficult to obtain, those people living in high crime areas and big city ghetto's will be sitting ducks for criminals who do not obey laws. Notice mass shootings take place in locations where guns are prohibited such as schools, movie theaters, college campuses etc.

[Buzz cook]

64. There are lot of nations where you can buy guns legally.

That includes all the countries of the European Union and UK.

While we do have lots of guns in the US, the trend is that those guns are owned by fewer and fewer people. During the Obama era hoarders could corner the market for certain types of ammo and guns. The price of guns rose precipitately.

If there were a full or partial gun ban it is possible that we would see the same effect. Guns would be removed from circulation by hoarders and collectors, leaving very few guns for all but the wealthiest criminals.

[quartz007]

86. I have a number of relatives in UK

and they laugh at US because guns are so easy to buy here. All one needs is lack of criminal record and one passes background checks. In UK it is extremely difficult to get gun permit.

[GulfCoast66]

89. I was in France this past fall.

And saw a whole lot of nattily dressed men with shotguns hunting birds and rabbits.

And deer hunting is big there too. But only for the rich.

I support much more restrictive gun laws. But lots of very civilized nations allow gun ownership.

But not AR type things.

[quartz007]

94. Guns should be available cheaply for

single mothers living in high crime areas, period. At least until gov't is successful in taking guns away from law-breaking criminals.

I do not understand why anyone needs AR-15 for defense of home. A 9mm handgun which can fire bullets as fast as one can pull the trigger is a better weapon for defense.

[Amishman]

84. It wouldn't pass the common use protection Scalia invented

I had his same discussion on another message board. The answer I got is commonly used guns are protected under Heller.

A little more blood on Scalia's grave.

[X_Digger]

91. Invented? No, see US v Miller, 1939. n/t

[Retrotech]

4. Speak for yourself.

The second ammendment is garbage, and will be repealed within the decade.

[Mariana]

5. That's exactly what she did, genius. nt.

[Retrotech]

7. Must take a REAL genius to not understand a common expression.

[LakeArenal]

9. Wow

You sure you are in the right place?

[Retrotech]

13. Why? Is this the place where a snarky response is to be met with demure acceptance?

[LakeArenal]

15. Who's the snarky one?

[Retrotech]

24. Try post 5

[LakeArenal]

33. I agree with post five...

Kajan is speaking for herself.

[LanternWaste]

68. "Because they did it too!" as my eleven year old niece would have said-- when she was ten.

Keep digging. It's bemusing to watch on an otherwise dreary and cloudy Friday morning.

The important thing though, is you continue to rationalize your own behavior by pointing at others. It's your Sacred Duty as an American to justify reduction of your own character to the lowest common denominator.

"Because they did it too!" as my eleven year old niece would have said-- when she was ten.

[NRaleighLiberal]

21. what exactly are you here for?

[moriah]

14. Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay....

FWIW, my female second cousin prefers bow season. If people didn't supplement their freezers with venison we'd have more deer collisions and more blocking traffic in the city limits here. Cats are keeping the bunnies from taking over, but they can't tackle deer.

[Retrotech]

20. Thanks!

[Tribalceltic]

51. I don't know anyone who hunts deer

with a .223 AR-15.

[Sailor65x1]

54. Nice to meet you...

Now you know one. With the Nosler bullet load, the .223 is a good deer round, limited only in effective range, not in power.

[atreides1]

80. You use an AR-15?

Or are you using one of the many bolt action .223 caliber rifles?

[Sailor65x1]

95. Yes, it's an AR...

A Bushmaster.

[moriah]

60. I think bow is a little more sporting, was my point.

And that venison is tasty, and led a happy non-cooped up life like a deer should prior to becoming venison. Can't always say that about the protein at a burger joint or supermarket.

TBH I was born in the city so while we get a care package of frozen meat from various relatives if they overfill their deep freezes, I don't know what size ammo is best for a single-shot kill and still preserve antlers and meat, the usual goal. I can't imagine any need for mega-magazines, however.

And if a grandma can get a 11 point buck with a bow, and my sister has a working muzzleloader that her grandfather literally made (though the fucker is too heavy for her to shoot, her husband has, and it's accurate) it's not like people who need that extra meat in their freezers are going to starve if they can't have the newest tech.

[LanternWaste]

69. Difficult to imagine how the ecology managed without human intervention...

Difficult to imagine how the ecology managed without human intervention for millions of years...

[moriah]

70. It did, til we got here and destroyed predator habitat.

And again, at least I know that the venison I eat spent its maturing time living the life of freedom a deer should have before it became venison. Can't guarantee that anything was humane if I go KFC for protein.

Please, diss on trophy hunting and anything else that doesn't involve eating the animals people decide to kill for "sport".

But unless you are advocating vegetarianism, don't act like people who hunt and eat what they kill are more complicit in animal abuse that the person who buys those Tyson frozen bird parts.

[Mariana]

73. And it takes a super duper uber genius not to understand

how idiotic it is to say "Speak for yourself" to someone who was speaking for herself.

[Retrotech]

74. When someone say "Have a good day!"

do you incredulously protest that the day belongs to everyone, and that it's not yours to have? Or that there's no way to tell what kind of day it is? Its called an expression.

[moriah]

79. Simmer down sweetie.

You posted something relatively provocative -- not your use of an expression, but the belief we'll actually overturn the 2nd within a decade.

I believe that eventually we will have a ruling that explicitly allows for federal registration of all firearms and severe restrictions on the "secondary market", and being found with an unregistered firearm will be a crime. Buy-back programs that don't give market value won't work, and it's highly unlikely any reading of plain language would allow for people who currently legally own the guns out there to have them pried out of hands without due process. Which is sad in reducing the number of guns out there.

Unless there's an Article V Convention, which carries risks for liberals to call for on gun control since there's questions about whether the issue called is necessarily what has to be discussed, and numerous Libertarian groups have been trying to get an Article V Convention about *anything* just to test this theory....

It's going to have to be lawmakers making some legislation, and gun-humpers appealing it and losing.

That's my humble opinion, at least.

[shanny]

77. Saying "NOBODY is trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment..."

is by definition Not Speaking for Yourself, "genius."

[moriah]

81. And it's a RWTP that "liberals are out to get yer gunz" so...

.... avoiding implying it was fairly smart of the OP.

First post aggressively saying the 2A will be gone within a decade and continuing to be salty?

Sets off people's warning systems that the person may be being deliberately provocative, even if it IS unfair to judge new posters inflamed by current events.

[shanny]

83. THIS liberal IS out to get their gunz

so clearly the OP doesn't speak for me, and I totally sympathize with even first-time posters on this issue, particularly when passions are so understandably high. just sayin'

and the snarky "genius" call was...uncalled for. imo

[Kajun Gal]

96. Give me a break. Your response was dumb!

[shanny]

99. lol

[former9thward]

105. Did she genius?

She said NOBODY wants to get rid of the 2nd amendment. She spoke for EVERYBODY.

[Egnever]

12. Agreed

I am all for abolishing the second amendment or at the very least putting serious restrictions on it.

That said I also recognize I am in the minority and so it will likely never happen but if it did I would cheer.

[quartz007]

31. I am all for melting down ALL guns

but not sure if the law breakers would relinquish their guns.

[Egnever]

36. I don't care

that's what cops are for. At first there might be lots of crooks with guns but over time that would diminish significantly as they were taken off the streets.

It's not like armed citizens are running around saving us all from the criminals now.

[spin]

40. Its not the job of honest citizens to save society from criminals. ...

However an armed honest citizen may be able to save himself from an attack by a criminal.

It does happen. In fact both my mother and my daughter stopped an attacker with a handgun. In the 1920s my mother got off a bus and was walking home from work in a rural area when a guy who had been hiding behind some bushes rushed her. She fired two shots over his head from a small caliber revolver she had in her purse and he ran. In the 1980s the burglar alarm went off in our home and when my daughter walked into the kitchen she found a guy forcing the sliding glass door open. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he also turned and ran.

In passing I have had a handgun or a shotgun pointed at me several times during my life. It is simply amazing how huge the barrel of a firearm looks when you are staring down it. I should also point out that I was not doing anything wrong. The individual on the other end of the weapon simply wasn’t sure of who I was or why I was where I was. All ended well fortunately.

[quartz007]

45. There is a thriving black market!

Cocaine is illegal, prostitution is illegal, but these are easily available if you have $$$.

If you have the $$, you can acquire any gun on the black market.

Prohibition has never worked if there is demand. Al Capone became very wealthy selling booze on the black market during prohibition era.

[EX500rider]

93. "At first there might be lots of crooks with guns but over time that would diminish significantly"

How's that worked out in Mexico?

Mexican homicide rate 16 per 100,000
US rate 4 per 100,000


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[spin]

37. Also a significant number of people who are not currently law breakers ...

would also refuse to relinquish their guns. Of course they would be then considered to be criminals.

Which would make the following statement accurate:

“If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns.”

The big problem is that many might also become revolutionaries.

[MarvinGardens]

41. +1

The drastic action that many on here propose would go over about as well as alcohol prohibition did.

[GulfCoast66]

92. Knock yourself out.

But since the Democratic Platform expressly calls out the right of Americans to own firearms...

Well, knock yourself out.

[tritsofme]

19. Delusional. Please name the 38 states that would ratify this amendment...in the next 2 years

Or even 10 years if I interpret your comment charitably. And that is after of course, 2/3 of each congressional chamber approves.

It’s nice to have aspirations, but this is just disconnected from reality.

[Skittles]

22. LOL

ALRIGHTY THEN

[Takket]

27. repeal? not a chance in hell

[Sailor65x1]

55. Are you prepared to lose the first amendment as well?

The first is, and has always been, more dangerous than the second. The second sometimes gives terrible results, but the first gives us whole regimes.

[hunter]

66. That's a dumb argument. Slavery used to be constitutional.

Slaveholder's even got to represent their slaves, each slave counting as 3/5 of a person.

Fuck the second amendment.

[GulfCoast66]

90. You a betting person?

Cause I hope to live another 30 years. The 2nd amendment will not repealed in my potential grandkids lifetime. Not saying I want that. But hey, reality.

[BaileyBill]

6. Maybe if we just read it as written.

I'm pretty sure none of these mass shooters belonged to any well-regulated militias.

[LakeArenal]

11. That's what I can't believe...

It specifically states "well-regulated militias"... yet....

[Marengo]

25. Only those enrolled in militias can legally possess firearms?

[LakeArenal]

32. Maybe....

It does say specifically "well-regulated militia".

Not being argumentative, but what does that mean to you?

I don't think anyone, especially Obama or Hillary, is coming for our guns. I think most people want to eliminate the proliferation of assault rifles and clips that reload in a second.

[spin]

42. I could be a total ass and point out the correct terminology is magazine. ...

However I have known a good number of firearm enthusiasts who also call a magazine a clip.



Some revolvers use a clip.



Revolvers that use such clips can be reloaded very quickly.

[LakeArenal]

52. Yes only a total ass would point all that out

See, we agree.

[spin]

65. The same back. ...

[MarvinGardens]

43. It's poorly written.

It also says "the right of the people...". Does that mean individuals, or does it mean collectively i.e. the states? And if it means the states, why doesn't it just say "the states" like it does everywhere else in the Constitution? For example, the Tenth Amendment refers to both the states and the people.

I hope none of our other constitutional rights are interpreted as being "collective" rights.

[LakeArenal]

50. Hence the word maybe....

Just asked what it meant to that responder.

I’m no Constitution scholar.

There are so many things that might be done with or without the second amendment being repealed.

[Marengo]

71. Wherewhen has militia membership been a prerequisite for the possession of firearms?

[GulfCoast66]

10. Congress could vote tomorrow that Americans

Can no longer buy AR style weapons and that all magazines over, say 8 rounds are illegal and must be turned in. And nothing about the 2nd amendment precludes that.

We do not have a constitution issue, we have a lack of political will issue.

Not sure the Supremes would go for turning in all AR frame rifles. But the ability to ban large capacity magazines is confirmed

[flamin lib]

17. I don't think confiscation without compensation is constitutional but

they could set a price for compensation based on a reasonable sale price of a used rifle and buy them all back. It happens all the time with eminent domain.

Shit, Texas has done it for the construction of a football stadium.

[GeorgeGist]

16. Repeal 2A!

[X_Digger]

30. .. which wouldn't do what you think it would.

It would go from being an enumerated right to an unenumerated right protected by the ninth amendment; it would also be explicitly protected by about 42 states' own constitutions.

[jrthin]

18. Maybe it should be done away with. Maybe that amendment was

Meant for a different place and time. We should not be afraid to let go of an amendment that no longer serve us. Or the very least, maybe we could seriously amend it.

[First Speaker]

23. Repealing the Second Amendment would be a disaster for liberals...

...once the precedent was set that the Bill of Rights was negotiable, do you think that today's GOP would let it rest there? The damage they'd do to our liberties is almost beyond imagination. This does *not* mean we are helpless. Semi-automatics could be banned, or at least greatly reduced, without doing harm to the letter or spirit of the amendment. "Well-regulated" is a term that we can be creative with. But for God's sake, be careful what you wish for...

[MarvinGardens]

44. Great post. (nt)

[C_U_L8R]

26. Politics aside

The world would be a lot better place without guns.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

28. In 1996, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Mass Shooting Since.

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

more

------------

Just something to remember when the NRA says gun control laws don't work. This is empirical evidence that they do, and have for more than 20 years in Australia.

[pamdb]

34. 2nd amendment

I would love to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

[samir.g]

35. We should have done away with it a long time ago.

[pansypoo53219]

38. poo.only muskets.

[MaryMagdaline]

39. I am. Second Amendment needs to go

[hunter]

59. The second amendment is bullshit, just as slavery was bullshit.

This is the twenty first century. If some foreign power wanted to take out a camp of ragtag militiamen they'd use cluster bombs.

Or less trouble, they'd buy the complicity of the NRA, our politicians, and our president.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

This nation would be a much nicer place if 99% of the guns were tossed into the steel furnaces.

wikipedia

[fleabiscuit]

62. Congress's power is virtually unlimited.

If they chose to do so they could ban all guns in public and ban all sales.

[proudp55]

63. Only the police and military should have guns

[Calculating]

82. Don't we have enough problems with police brutality and oppression?

Now you want them to be the only ones with guns? That's how you get a North Korea situation.

[oneshooter]

87. THIS is what scares a LOT of people.

If only the Government has firearms then what would prevent them from declaring a coup? Removing the protections provided by the Constitution?

[NCTraveler]

67. Your absolute subject line is absolutely flawed. Nt

[Shrek]

72. There are hunters who don't hunt deer

A semi-auto shotgun is very useful for waterfowl or quail, and has nothing to do with the skill of the hunter (it's more to do with the the agility of the birds and the types of shots typically taken).

[alarimer]

75. I am; I think that should be the goal.

But let's start by banning and confiscating this particular weapon. Buying them should be illegal, so should possession.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. You dont have to get rid of it, just read it the way it was written, solves most problems.

[byronius]

78. Bingo.

The Federalist Papers discuss the 2nd extensively. It's all about the National Guard. Nothing else. Period.

Ammosexuals have shifted the meaning for decades and decades. It's bullshit.

[EX500rider]

97. If it was only about the National Guard it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights..

....and wouldn't include the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If the 1st amendment was worded:

"A well regulated Press, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed."

Would only the press have free speech or the people?

[byronius]

98. It's complex history, but true.

Not a logic game. Randi Rhodes spent an hour and a half going through the hard history, reading the excerpts from the Federalist Papers and later analysis of the same by the best legal minds of our nation.

The founders had no intent whatsoever of guaranteeing the personal rights of citizens to bear arms except for forming a well-regulated militia. Everyone involved knew this at the time, and thousand of letters and other documents make this clear. It wasn't until the gun industry started bribing politicians in the 1950's that the meaning changed.

Your syllogism is evidence of their work. Everyone 'knows' a 'logical' fact that did not exist when the original languarge was written.

[EX500rider]

100. Well the only opinion the actually matters is the Supreme Court...and they have already decided.

Plus you can find tons of "legal experts" and excerpts from the Federalists Papers that go the other way.

I certainly wouldn't rely on talk show hosts for Constitutional interpretations.

And the fact that it is in the Bill Of Rights says enough, they are a formal declaration of the legal and civil rights of the citizens of the state.

[Hoyt]

103. And Supreme Court can revisit, and they said guns can be restricted. So your guns arent

home free.

[EX500rider]

106. Actually my 60+ year old bolt acton rifles are categorized as "Curio & Relics"

I doubt they are in any danger.

[byronius]

104. Yeahhhh, okey-dokey.

Have it your way.

But Randi Rhodes is the sharpest mind for news analysis and political history I've ever run across. To dismiss her in such a fashion is more reflective of you than her. And that show was amazing. Eye-opening. Quite deep, intellectually powerful, solid history.

She talks a lot about that disastrous and politically-motivated Supreme Court decision, and how reversing it would go a long way to fixing the problem. She ranks it right up there with Bush v. Gore for 'crooked politicians in black robes' decisions the Supremes have made over the generations. Dred Scott, of course, always at the top.

I get that you have an agenda here. That's okay. But Randi Rhodes is demonstrably correct on so many points of fact over the years that I've learned to trust her implicitly. I don't always agree with her, but her facts and analysis beat any crappy think-tank or Supreme Extreme or lobbyist lawyer on the planet.

I set a high information standard for myself, EX500rider. I prefer hard-nosed reality. I read a great deal, always have; it's my superpower. I've dealt with truth and falsehood on many levels, in business, in legal conflict, in history. I'm aware of all the recent studies demonstrating how fallible human perception can be. I have a good grasp of how science has evolved, and how personalities and self-infatuation can substantially retard even scientific progress.

I think about those things a lot. All the time. So understand me when I say, absent deeper information concerning a programmed reality, I trust Randi Rhodes more than I trust any writer or scientist or attorney or philosopher of this century or any other.

Wish I had the time to look up the show. But writing this response has made me late.

The Founding Fathers were unconcerned with any right to bear arms that did not specifically address the defense of the nation. Ignoring the phrase 'well-regulated militia' and all the background writing and recording of conversations that surround that phrase is where the disingenuousness begins. It's one of those urban myths manufactured for political purposes, kinda like 'welfare queens' and 'thugs'.

Plus, things change. Do you think private citizens should be free to own nuclear weapons? The NRA does.

[EX500rider]

107. Link to the NRA wanting to legalize nuclear weapons? I doubt that.

[byronius]

108. Yeah, so did my business partner. So he called them and asked. And then shut up.

And didn't join.

They set no limits. No speed, quantity, style, or firepower. NRA thinks you should be able to buy a tank mounted with electromagnetic rail guns that can fire a projectile through twenty brick walls. NRA thinks you should be able to buy a million of those tanks.

NRA thinks mobile artillery pieces of any caliber are important for home defense. Oh, and grenades.

But you didn't know that. What else don't you know?

Well, neither of us know exactly how long the Russians have owned the NRA, or how much Russian money they gave the GOP in the last cycle.

Maybe because the ideology of the NRA is destabilizing the nation? Making us unsafe with fear?

Tactics! Russian tactics. And they're working.

[mshasta]

88. All guns should be banned period

No more bloody guns ....our children are paying for us to have a stupid right to have a gun

[byronius]

109. I'm on board with that.

If all guns are banned, only criminals will have guns.

So they'll be easy to spot and incarcerate.

[Kajun Gal]

110. No, that is wrong. Explanation below...

The 2nd amendment should not be done away with. All guns should not be banned. Semi-automatic, military weapons maybe should be banned among normal, everyday citizens, but we do have the right to protect ourselves and our property and that right should never be taken away from us. We have the right to hunt. But why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle to hunt or shoot a home invader is beyond me, unless we are living in the end times like Armageddon and literally fighting militia or something.

[Beartracks]

102. 2nd Amendment doesn't say "right to bear ANY arms" and yet...

... gun humpers think they have a "right" to do so.

But the right is simply to "bear arms" -- and not being able to haul around assault weapons does not leave you unable to exercise that right.

==========

[Kajun Gal]

111. True. "...the right to keep and bear arms..."