3 ms·

Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. No amount of qualification, justification, or rationalizing will change that. Crim

Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. No amount of qualification, justification, or rationalizing will change that. Criminals are already criminal; they will get ahold of whatever they need to commit crimes. There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States. I completely agree that states need better care for the mentally ill. The current trend of affirmative treatment, both medical and psychological, is extremely damaging to patients and society. Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
> Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. > There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States. There is no other country in the developed world where gun violence is such a grave endemic problem. So, no, you cannot compare the US to any other country in the world in this regard. > Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong. Right, so there be more rules, then.
- hatware 4y ago
  > Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? Frame the tool argument however you like. At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? So "shall not be infringed" is strong language, but "well regulated militia" is not. > At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. Let me be frank: this is because a very vocal minority doesn't want to give up their toys. You cannot convince me that people with 10+ guns are out there because they want to take up arms against a tyrannic government. They like their guns the same way they could like cars, or Lego. > A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns? There is no way a majority of gun owners would go to war over this, I guarantee you that, and of those who say they would, I bet that the majority are just LARPers with too much free time.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

> Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. > There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States. There is no other country in the developed world where gun violence is such a grave endemic problem. So, no, you cannot compare the US to any other country in the world in this regard. > Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong. Right, so there be more rules, then.

hatware 4y ago
> Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? Frame the tool argument however you like. At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? So "shall not be infringed" is strong language, but "well regulated militia" is not. > At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. Let me be frank: this is because a very vocal minority doesn't want to give up their toys. You cannot convince me that people with 10+ guns are out there because they want to take up arms against a tyrannic government. They like their guns the same way they could like cars, or Lego. > A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns? There is no way a majority of gun owners would go to war over this, I guarantee you that, and of those who say they would, I bet that the majority are just LARPers with too much free time.