2 ms·
Get your head out of your ass. Jimmy-and-bear stories are for little children, it's just some weak strawman here. You keep saying I'm wrong, but can't get to th
by the_gipsy 4y ago
Get your head out of your ass. Jimmy-and-bear stories are for little children, it's just some weak strawman here. You keep saying I'm wrong, but can't get to the point of why. The theft/death comparison is absurd because theft and death are two different things.
If you wanna own a gun, great, but the regulations should be extreme - just like anything else hazardous, like motorized vehicles. I can't speed in urban areas just because "it's muh freedom of movement" and I haven't run anybody over (yet). Statistics are statistics and guns increase crime, violence, and death.
- hellojesus 4y agoThere is an obvious difference: the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined into the constitution under the regulation, "shall not be infringed". There is no such right for vehicles.
- the_gipsy 4y agoFirst off, the constitution can and should be updated. Second, the "right to bear arms" is not without limits already. Third, guns will never be eliminated completely, just regulated more strictly.
- hellojesus 4y agoYes, the constitution can be updated via ammendment. My point was that, at present, one is constitutionally protected and the other is not. Also the current limits on arms are all unconstitutional. There's no question about it. But there is a whole host of things that are unconstitutional that don't seem to matter anyway, like social security and minimum wage.