5 ms·

It's so bonkers. America has the most unfettered gun ownership laws in the developed world by a mile and somehow it's still a political wedge that can outweigh

• busymom0 5y ago
  New Jersey (along with NY, CA) has the most unconstitutional gun control laws in America. If I have a daughter who's returning home late at night from University, I would want her to be armed for her own protection. Things like "taxation" are not the most important thing to her.
  • willvarfar 5y ago
    It would be better to live in the kind of country where girls can walk home at night safely without guns?
    • busymom0 5y ago
      I am originally from India.
      • mrverify 5y ago
        Hmm. Doesn't India have severe gun laws? Why aren't women safer in India yet?
        • busymom0 5y ago
          India has extreme gun control laws unfortunately. If you are rich or politically connected, you can own guns or have bodyguards in India. Most people don't have that luxury there. Going through the process and it costs more than the average Indian's annual salary. Carrying guns in public places in most of India is prohibited. At least in the US, you can afford one fairly easily as long as your background check passes.
        • foolinaround 5y ago
          Well, India's population is a multiple of that of the US. However, many areas include Delhi - the rate of violence against women is just unbelievable! If such a city had gun laws like Texas, you might see the crime rate come down drastically. In India, the rich can afford guns. That is the sad truth.
    • oh_sigh 5y ago
      Yup, now OP just has the choice to make...completely rewrite American society, or go down to the gun store and buy a gun.
    • betwixthewires 5y ago
      It would be better to live in the kind of country where girls can walk home at night safely. Whether that's with or without guns doesn't really matter.
  • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    When my daughter(s) returned home late at night (or perhaps better described as early in the morning) in Berlin, they didn't need guns, and the taxes helped pay for a transportation system that meant they didn't need to drive either.
    • betwixthewires 5y ago
      Well the difference between your daughters and my daughters is that they're reliant on a giant system and the good will of others and mine are reliant on themselves. When they walk home late at night they don't need to worry either, because they have guns.
      • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        the giant system is more powerful and has been around much longer than the guns. and when you say "they're reliant", you make it sound as if somehow the citizens of berlin get offered the chance make a daily choice to be nice, when in reality, it's baked in at a much deeper level. there are hardly any crazy people in berlin (in the sense of wanting or needing to assault people). your daughters live in the middle of a giant system too, but instead of one that puts a priority on the kinds of things that berlin does, its a giant system that "requires" them to have guns. not only that, but they still have to worry: you don't get to pull out a gun in a dangerous situation without adding to the potential danger. btw, i live in new mexico now, and my daughters are both grown women who live in chicago and philadelphia, and still do not carry guns.
        • betwixthewires 5y ago
          It doesn't require them to have guns. There are wild animals outside too, maybe we can make a system where that doesn't exist. Berlin sounds real nice. You never need to think about protecting yourself when things are going great. It may feel baked in at a deeper level, but don't forget, Berlin has at one time relatively recently been a very terrible place to live, especially for those that didn't have guns. The entire idea of having a gun is to make a dangerous situation more dangerous, it creates symmetry, an aggressor is now equal to his or her victim. New mexico is pretty nice too. Did you know that anyone who wants to can openly carry any gun they want in new mexico?
  • tootie 5y ago
    That's irrational. She's probably 100X more likely to be hit by a car than be a victim of crime. And more likely to be victimized by someone she knows than random street crime. Not to mention the risk of serious illness or injury via accidents. A reflective vest and health insurance will do far more for her safety than a gun. Not to mention, no one is really saying that personal weapons will be ever be gone. She can protect herself with pepper spray. Or really she can kill whoever she wants with a small caliber revolver and we can still ban military-style weapons (or we could if voters were rational).
• post_break 5y ago
  Show me someone who is for healthcare, unions, college, but also doesn't want to take a black marker to the second amendment, I'll wait. Until the left stops going after guns, single issue voters will keep voting the way they do.
  • Intermernet 5y ago
    Have you ever considered why there is a strong correlation between beliefs in healthcare, unions and college and a belief in gun control laws?
    • mrverify 5y ago
      [flagged]
  • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Show me someone who opposes single-payer healthcare, unions, affordable college costs but also believes that the second amendment did not and does not constitute an unfettered right to do more or less anything with guns. I'll wait. Until the right stops viewing the 2nd amendment as the benchmark issue, progressives will continue to see their position on it as just another part of their uniform opposition to a more modern society.
    • betwixthewires 5y ago
      Then they can continue to lose the opportunity to do real, valuable reform by throwing a fit over a wedge issue.
  • jimmygrapes 5y ago
    Well I'm right here, but I don't know how to run for office and I probably would get crucified for entirely unrelated opinions (which I would be willing to change if given adequate reason). Probably a lot of people like me (and I assume you?) out there. We just aren't on the ballot, even if sometimes we might be entirely qualified.
  • 5y ago
• madengr 5y ago
  That’s because it’s a fundamental right that the government is strictly prohibited from violating. The Bill of Rights says nothing about your other topics.
• caeril 5y ago
  Yes, it's weird that infringement of the fundamental right to self-defense is taken more seriously than things that are not fundamental rights. Weirdest thing I've ever seen. Those wacky Americans and their crazy belief in liberty, or like, not wanting to be a victim of democide. Say what you want about Hitler and his whole disarming-the-Jews thing, but healthcare for everyone else was pretty top-notch. And if you ever feel sad for all the people murdered by Stalin after being disarmed, just remember how good the USSR mathematics program was.
  • tootie 5y ago
    Yeah. But replace your sarcasm with sincerity. Proof is in the pudding. Germany, France, Britain, Japan, Australia and many others have long ended the right to gun ownership and it has not decreased their freedom at all. The second amendment was a direct descendant of British Common Law and Britain severely curtailed personal gun ownership over the course of the 20th century and managed to not only remain a vibrant democracy, but have even marginalized their monarchy through popular sentiment without shooting anyone. They even survived a wave of terrorism without. The reach of the second amendment goes far beyond what is needed for personal defense and, in fact, was most certainly not intended for personal defense but rather defense of the nation. We could shrink gun ownership laws by 90% and not prevent people from defending themselves. But, really, we can't because the second amendment says Congress, states and cities are not allowed to.
    • namelessoracle 5y ago
      Have you not paid attention to anything at all going on in Australia right now?