Same. I don't even have a clue what I said that could have upset them, jfc.

Ok, whatevs. You really should be making some phone calls to Senators to get your M4 legislation rolling.

I was a libertarian too. When I was twelve. Then I grew up.

You said that later on, not at first. Done talking to a gun nut like you. Good luck with your M4 legislation! /s

You said you advocated the possession of AKs and M4s, both of which are illegal. How are you imagining our government to become tyrannical and how will your Glock prevent that?

You are paranoid because you said I want to jail anyone who disagrees with me. Never said that, nor could a person in touch with reality conclude that. Which also makes you dangerous with any gun based on your paranoia about the government being "tyrannical". Care to explain what sorts of tyranny you are experiencing or anticipating and how your legal firearm alleviates it?

No, you shouldn't own a gun bc you have perception problems based in paranoid delusions, you have a persecutory complex.

No, again you are demonstrating why you shouldn't own any gun. Never said I want to lock up anyone who disagrees with me, just those who advocate illegal machine gun ownership.

Good thing you clarified that. You didn't say advocate a change in the law at first.

I knew a couple of twin girls who made Blue Belt at 15 that could easily take down a dude with a knife, let alone "defend themselves".

Nah, Bro. You are obviously paranoid and out of touch with reality. People who advocate illegal gun ownership of machine guns are a danger to our civil society and need to be locked up before they go to Vegas and kill people from a high-floor suite. I'm reporting you to the FBI Domestic Terrorism Unit. Where do you live, Coward?

You belong in prison, you are an anti-government nut. You live in the freest nation on Earth and have issues, smh.

AKs and M4s aren't legal. And no, they alone can't stop a hostile invasion. Stop being a dupe for the NRA, they only work for gun manufacturers to increase sales.

Yes. 99% of you have no real need of a firearm beyond psychological.

Start training them at 5, they'll be a black belt before they are 16. Blanket gun availability leads to kindergartners being slaughtered.

You feel tyranny? How? I agree, we should take just about 99% of them. Nobody should really be trusted to unilaterally decide to end my life so easily. Even most police officers have no real need for a gun. The tyrants in our system are voted out. Our Senate has more power than the President. The crisis we are facing is deliberate propaganda from foreign powers manipulating us on social media. Russia, for example, believes that we can be goaded into a race war. China is dumbing us down for generations to come with Tik Tok stupidity. Australians turned in most of their guns after they came to their senses. We still have guys like Gov. Abbott offer prayers and condolences as the only solution to Uvalde.

Again, your comment supports the status quo and isn't a serious debate. How would you solve the issue?

Guns are the problem because people have unfettered access to them. And the people who aren't don't prevent the people who are. This is why we can't have nice things. Seriously, the people who demand unfettered access to guns are just as much the problem as people who actually pull the triggers unnecessarily. Put the guns in a chair and throw them both into the smelter, that's the only way to be sure they don''t harm an innocent person.

Yes. The Sheriff, via deputies. Or a specific Judge in larger venues. The murderer and the authorities who failed to investigate and arrest the stalker upon complaint.

Criminals have access to guns because guns are widely distributed, legally. Crime-related gun violence IS the problem. Are you arguing that those stats don't qualify? What is a "non-crime-related" mass shooting? Rare is a vague term. Too many to allow 18-year olds loners and aging nutcases to buy AR-15s. The brainwashing is from the NRA. We are less safe with unregulated gun markets.

Not true. The increase in gun violence is directly proportional to the spike in guns the NRA promoted with "Obama is gonna take your guns away". We do live in a "police state" of surveillance. Our violence is directly tied to gun culture. Guns allow for bigger numbers and more severity.

No demonstrated need for one.

No. It would take a repeated effort of fine-tuning policy. Once many gun nuts realize they won't qualify to own a gun, they won't want anyone else to either. A blanket ban wouldn't occur immediately, if ever. And only if a majority voted in representatives to do that.

"Personal firearms are not a right, they are a privilege subject to the laws of Congress, including universal bans if deemed necessary for public safety."

The 2A needs to be amended. You are being fed propaganda the NRA to promote gun sales, a billion-dollar industry. None of those countries was a healthy and wealthy democracy like ours. Personal firearms do not prevent government tyranny. Voting out bad actors does.

No and no. Robberies can be prevented without personal gun use, and property crimes don't justify summary execution. And no, you can find another way to camp safely without arming yourself with a firearm or else you can choose not to camp. The people who decide is the people, through policy and laws by elected representatives.

One possible exception, we can agree upon that. Are you willing to put her in jail for 10 years minimum if she lies about it or allows her gun to be transferred or "lost" into the black market? And only if she takes classes to demonstrate competency about use and when she may and may not use it.

Yes, Supreme Court Justices qualify for a well-vetted team of armed bodyguards as they are subject to political assassination. Common sense. 18-year old loners living in Mommy's basement with undiagnosed psychosis are not entitled to AR-15s.

Not personal guns. Professional bodyguards.

4 Supreme Court Justices disagree with you. It is a gun problem. More guns into poor people's hands. More gun violence. Period

Their personal handguns and rifles aren't repelling anything. Anything less than an AK or M4 has no bearing. Wars are won and lost on supply alone.

So your argument is that we should give kindergartners guns?

Yeah, more propaganda and false rhetoric, Buddy. The majority of women in the United States left the house without a handgun today and were not a victim of any crime. They are more likely to be shot by a boyfriend, husband, or other acquaintance, or a stalker, than use a handgun in any form of self-defense. Even women who armed themselves against stalkers become victims, because the stalkers have had legal access to firearms.

A gun is not a sure-fire protection nor the only protection for a woman. Most women take other precautionary measures and do not walk around with a handgun.

Yes. Because banning guns reduces gun violence and the ability to commit mass murders. Significantly. Or should we legalize grenades? You know, "self-defense" grenades?

The police don't police these neighborhoods, that's why crime is such a huge problem there.

Because allowing guns in the first place is the problem. Everybody with a gun gets theirs from the same supply chain. There are plenty of legally-purchased guns which become used in gun violence and the victims deserve better from us as a society to prevent every Tom, Dick, and Harry from having an unnecessary gun.

No, what I am saying is that personal guns don't win a civil war nor repel a modern invader. If the U.K. and the USA and NATO stop funding and arming Ukraine, they lose to Russia in a matter of weeks. Has nothing to do with .22s and .45s. Or hunting rifles.

No, it wouldn't. It would alleviate communities of colors from allowing drug gangs the tool they need to function. Wealthy white people are generally more apt to obey the law. If guns were no longer legal, they would turn them in.

Guns are the issue. It impacts poor people the most. Which happen to be more blacks than whites.

I have. And plenty of women can protect themselves without a gun.

And having a gun has also got the victim shot and killed when they would have survived unscathed instead.

Useless against what? A gun? How about we catch the criminal with the gun and confiscate BEFOREHAND, and put him in jail for 15 years? Cops do this all the time. Yet those guns are usually "legal" and let go, or only punished lightly when not.

No, they are not. The criminal has the advantage and initiative because they have a gun. If you don't want to spend the time to be safe, then safety isn't the concern. It's the love of the gun. And if I know you are armed and I'm still intent on committing the crime, I'm going to kill you first. Tell me how the 2A protects spouses from being shot by their spouses?

No. I don't need to demand to own a gun in a civil society to pretend it would stop a tyrannical gov't or an invading force. You think a Lorcin .22 stops a Russian infantry division? Ukraine is a democratic ally and a free nation. Russia is an oligarchy dictatorship that is as dangerous as Germany was during WWII. You are too young to understand the Cold War.

I second this. It's becoming clear that the 2A needs to be amended to reflect the modern era and allows us to regulate guns as heavily as needed to end gun violence. Including banning them completely if need be. Which is what I believe.

Yes, they do.

The Heller Case stripped all gun control and the NRA and their paid representatives in gov't, all of whom are Republicans, are promoting guns for everybody, all of the time. The only alternative being disguised as "gun control" from conservatives is saying that we should arm teachers to prevent school shooters lmfao.

No, guys like you are. You really are.

Bare arms? I'm not conflating anything. If you need to take up arms against the U.S. gov't, you would already be an outlaw and don't need the 2A to allow you to do that. Explain how Ukraine, with bigger guns than what the 2A allows, is still having trouble against Russia. You think your Smith and Wesson and AR-15 is gonna stop the M4s and drones that the imaginary war the US would start against its own citizens would involve?

There are non-lethal means, such as a stun gun. More petite criminals overcome larger victims because the CRIMINAL has the gun, not the other way around.

People are still victims even with a gun. The gun gives many a false sense of security.

Texas is going Blue. Cope. We both see the only path. I agree, it needs a 2A clarification. We shall see. The status quo prevents all forms of gun control. Perhaps Alito did us a favor and force us to amend it.

Japanese people are oppressed without handguns? Lol, no. It's harder to kill dozens of kids with stabbings than with a handgun. The police and citizens are more likely to stop a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. The War on Drugs had both good and bad elements. It eradicated crack dealers substantially.

Not true. Gun owners are in the minority. The 2A has nothing to do with individuals' self-defense. Guns legality allows gun crimes. Nothing to do with spare tires.

Yes, the 2A will be amended, or we replace a single Supreme Court Justice.

No, it's that the majority of us do not need nor use guns and understand that the 2A is grossly misinterpreted to allow the gun violence we have today. It's about selling guns, not public safety.

Common sense says to remove all guns. If people insist on using guns against the law, good. We can put them in prison for life where they belong. The War on Drugs worked against crack cocaine. It didn't against marijuana.

Your argument isn't congruent. The proper argument would be to ban all alcohol and severely punish those who persist. An accidental death from a traffic accident also isn't the same as the intentional use of a gun to shoot somebody. The supposed benefit of an armed society can be achieved without guns, we live in an age where cameras can deter and apprehend criminals. Our justice system needs to refocus on removing violent people for longer periods and less about non-violent crimes. The rioters, looters, insurrectionists, all of them should be in prison for years. Same for the assaulters and rapists, and murderers, ofc.

Exactly. Which is why all of the guns need to be removed and those who persist should be given 15 years to life in prison just for possessing one. That's the only way to prevent all the gun violence we see today.

Racism exists. Certain drugs are culturally abused by certain races and not others. Ban all the guns and put people who choose to break the law in prison for 15 years like we did with crack and watch gun violence fall dramatically.

Nah. Those are for white people and you proved my point. We don't harshly imprison for those, hence the problem.

Severe punishment eradicated much of the crack epidemic.

It does stop many.

Yes, we will.

They do not have guns to the degree we have and we have more gun violence because of it, and removing guns will remove many innocent victims.

The chain starts at the factory. That is the problem.