search results matching tag: gun control

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.008 seconds

    Videos (129)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (20)     Comments (526)   

Beto O’Rourke “It May Be Funny To You, Mother F*#ker”

luxintenebris says...

pardon if misinterpreting the 98% figure...

but most killings are done by the gun owner - on themselves.

suicides are annually #1 in gun deaths.

the life you may save might be yours - especially when men use guns for suicide far and away more than women. couple that w/a quarter of Americans say they have experienced some form of mental illness in their lifetime. in addition, the percentage of citizens wanting gun control eclipses the former stat: meaning a significate number of crazies see the need also.

which begs the question - how nuts do you have to be to want nuts to have guns?

on the 2nd Amendment, personally interpreted this way...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo...also (imagine that).

bobknight33 said:

@newtboy
@BSR
@mram


You can not have a military automatic weapon.

2nd 98% of killings are done by inner city thugs and yet the left only focus on suburban , school, theater killings .


Left wants to make it harder for people to buy legal -- The real problem is the illegal guns that are doing most killing - destroying families . cities. soles

The left has no desire to truly address this issue in their cities.

Beto O’Rourke “It May Be Funny To You, Mother F*#ker”

mram says...

I like that this makes you lethargic. I hope more R texans are just as sleepy as you. Cause frankly this level of gun "control" is BS and it's not funny to me either.

Keep sleepin in your cozy bed.

Thoughts and Prayers - A Randy Rainbow Song Parody

Hayes: NRA "Good Guy With A Gun" Theory Failed In Real Time

newtboy says...

No. It would not, imo. Mass shootings don’t help their positions.
Definitely not helpful to them if it sparked real political change.
It would only be “winning” for them if an armed civilian stopped the attack, but they don’t allow armed civilians at their events where they rally for the rights of any civilians to be armed anywhere but their events.
Edit: also, I don’t mind them “winning” if it means sensible gun laws that bar violent criminals and mentally unstable people from buying or carrying guns. I’m not anti gun, I’m anti unregulated guns.

My hatred is not their goal. If it were, they could save their money and pro-death stances, humanity as a whole did the job for them.

Their goal is to sell more guns. They’re an industry lobbying group, not a civil rights organization.
A little blowback from their own policies is exactly what’s needed to change some political positions. They’re cowards, but so far they’ve been safe behind their security, and the money is good.
Remember, the last meaningful gun control measure, background checks, came directly as a result of an assassination attempt against a pro gun Republican.

BSR said:

That would mean they are still winning.

EDIT: Their goal is to get you to hate. Don't fall for it.

Hayes: NRA "Good Guy With A Gun" Theory Failed In Real Time

cloudballoon says...

Imagine the scenario where a bad guy pulls out a gun, the first "good guy" pulls out a gun, then a second "good guy" pulls out his gun... wanna bet the probability who the 2nd guy points his or her gun to? And the subsequent 3rd-nth good guys' guns going to point theirs to?

Oh, then unevitably the "no duty to protect" police forces come and shoot ALL the guys with guns.

Total chaos, and good luck untangling the legal lawsuits that will inevitably come after. America! F**k YEAH!!

"Good Guy With A Gun" Theory. These NRA honchos reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally don't want their subservient cohorts think one more step ahead of any argument. The sad truth is there's enough of mindless American too lazy (or even capable?) to think ahead just as they wished due to America's educational system and pathetic "freedom at all costs" patirotism & American 2nd Ammendment Exceptionalism crap.

There are many democratic countries that said no to widespread gun ownerships (Australia, NZ, Japan) and are far better for it. I guess (read: I don't watch C-SPAN) that sense of American Pride infects even the Democrats to be gutsy enough to compare the US to other countries during legislative gun-control debates?

That assault-style (like the ARs) gun ownership rights is pretty FUBAR from the get go. If that's a right, why not grenades? Tanks, fighter jets, subs and heck, nuclear missiles? As long as I'm a "no criminal record" American citizen, isn't it my God-given right -- and my freedom! -- to own any weapons as long as I can afford it? Unhindered Capitalism at its finest we're talking here! The most American of values!

Chicago July 4th weekend - nearly 100 people shot

newtboy says...

Cops are "outgunned" according to police. How many of these shootings were officer involved?
Cops have full access to military combat equipment civilians don't. They aren't outgunned, it's not possible.
If ever there was a case for stronger gun control, @bobknight33 just made it in spades.

BSR (Member Profile)

The Worst Gun Control Bill I've Ever Seen

newtboy says...

TL,DW, but I read the bill....it’s short.
Fear not. This bill has zero chances of passing. It is, as described, the worst gun control bill in living memory.

Keep in mind, even with the house, senate, and presidency Democrats couldn’t even close gun show and private sale registration loopholes. What chance does an open to the public registry of all gun owners, their addresses, lists of their guns, and plain descriptions of where and how they are stored paired with an $800 a year per gun license (not concealed carry permits, just ownership) and mandatory penalties for not having a valid license at $75000-$150000 and 15-20 years in prison per infraction have. None. It’s laughably overreaching and unpopular....likely unconstitutional too.
Watch this wither on the vine. It isn’t serious, it’s someone trying to score political points....oddly enough sponsored by a Texan representative.

Passing this bill, that wouldn’t be enacted for at least a year after passing assuming no one challenged it, would absolutely guarantee Democrats lose the house and senate in 22, and the presidency in 24, and see it reversed before it was implemented. I don’t think they’re that stupid. (That’s not a challenge, congress)

Republicans Try to Dismiss Trumps Second Impeachment Trial

Mordhaus says...

I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.

That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.

We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.

Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.

newtboy said:

Impeachment already happened for a second time. You mean the trial.

It is pretty definitely constitutional because he was impeached while still the sitting president.

One reason for it is, in a criminal trial, they have to prove he intended to start a violent insurrection, a very difficult bar to clear especially considering his contradictory instructions in his speech and his mental state....in an impeachment trial they only have to show that his words incited it, not his intent. That’s a no brainer.

The only way it hurts Democrats in 2022 is it would hinder his creating a new party that would split “conservative” votes and guarantee victory for democrats across the board. Thinking conservatives should be itching for conviction and a ban from office to save the Republican party in 2022, if he’s let off conservatives are domed....republicans can’t win without Trumpists, Trump can’t win without Republicans. Conversely, letting him off with no consequences would hurt the democrat vote badly...why elect them if they let Republicans get away with everything including violent and deadly insurrection and attempted assassination.

Your fear of libs coming for your guns makes me sad. You drank the fear flavored koolaid, they just aren’t unless you go violently nuts, stalk someone, or beat your wife up, or if you need to buy them illegally because you’re a felon. Note, the NRA went bankrupt under Trump and McConnel, not Biden.

If Republicans want to fight everything because a murderous and treasonous coup is prosecuted as if it were disturbing the peace with no prison time possible, they should be tossed as traitors to the constitution that they swore to uphold that requires a punishment for inciting insurrection and attempting a government overthrow. Really, they want an excuse for fighting everything, it’s a foregone conclusion that they will no matter what, they have zero interest in compromise or bipartisanship. They insisted Trump had a mandate and should ignore Democrats completely because he won the electoral college, but now that Biden won it and the popular vote and the house and senate they insist he has no mandate and must let the minority call the shots. It’s not consistent because they aren’t honest about anything anymore.

No one that thinks prosecuting directing an attempted coup is wrong would be voting democrat anyway. Prosecuting incitement of murderous insurrection is not vengeance, it’s barely a thin slice of justice, but it’s the best that can be reasonably hoped for in today’s hyper partisan climate.

Doc Rivers

newtboy says...

Just remember, Texas refused the federal money to implement the ACA. It worked better, still not perfectly, in states that embraced it.

It's possible they could go overboard on guns, but I think there are plenty of democrats out there that want more gun control but not gun eradication or removals. They won't back representatives that back extreme gun laws.

You're probably right about the 96 ban returning and becoming permanent if dems have full control.

Mordhaus said:

I hearken back to the ACA, it would never have passed in a split congress. But it did because it was a perfect storm of all dem leadership and I still have issues with some of it. Without going too deep, the ACA has seriously fucked up my life as many family doctors in my area simply gave up and went full concierge (or just started refusing insurance). So now my options are to go to a clinic with no primary doctor or go back to my family doctor and pay 2k per year on top of insurance.

The same thing could happen to guns if the dems take both houses and the presidency. At the very least it ends in a return to the ban of 96 and is likely to be far worse. I support some gun control, but 80% of what they are suggesting is no bueno with me. Are these phantom fears? Possibly, but I trust the dems about as far as I can throw one in regards to gun control.

Doc Rivers

Mordhaus says...

I hearken back to the ACA, it would never have passed in a split congress. But it did because it was a perfect storm of all dem leadership and I still have issues with some of it. Without going too deep, the ACA has seriously fucked up my life as many family doctors in my area simply gave up and went full concierge (or just started refusing insurance). So now my options are to go to a clinic with no primary doctor or go back to my family doctor and pay 2k per year on top of insurance.

The same thing could happen to guns if the dems take both houses and the presidency. At the very least it ends in a return to the ban of 96 and is likely to be far worse. I support some gun control, but 80% of what they are suggesting is no bueno with me. Are these phantom fears? Possibly, but I trust the dems about as far as I can throw one in regards to gun control.

newtboy said:

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

Doc Rivers

Mordhaus says...

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

newtboy said:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

Doc Rivers

scheherazade says...

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

What anti gun legislation do you mean? All I know of is closing a few loopholes that allow people legally banned from gun ownership to obtain them anyway without background checks. I disagree that that is anti gun legislation, and across the board background checks are something a vast majority think is proper.

There's plenty of misinformation on this topic floating about. Is there other actual legislation in the works, or just rumors of other legislation the left will enact....and only according to the right?

Names

Mordhaus says...

I'll probably vote for Biden, but the rest of my votes have to go Republican for one reason only.

Guns. I am OK with some gun control. But it is clear that no matter what, Democrats will make every attempt they can if they sweep the election to re-do the assault weapon ban, apply punitive taxes to ammo (and possibly guns), and remove the right to private sale.

Bedo was the only one to fully admit it, but Biden has been harsh on guns as well going by comments alone. I don't want Trump back, but I want the Senate to stay Republican to counter gun measures.

I know it's unpopular, but I am one of those people that will never give up my rifles, my pistols, my shotguns, my large capacity clips, and my right to buy as much ammo as I wish without paying another government tax. I also feel I should be able to give or sell my firearms to someone I trust, be it a family member or close friend.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

harlequinn says...

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

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

wtfcaniuse said:

Firstly I didn't quote you, I didn't assume anything about you, I didn't mention you or your previous comments at all.

Secondly the second amendment doesn't specify guns and doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use. It's funny how many gun rights advocates don't care if their knives, tasers, knuckle dusters and pepper sprays are regulated and controlled.

Thirdly Gun control doesn't equate to taking all your guns away.

Lastly constitutional amendments can be repealed and changed.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon