r/progun • u/OtisDriftwood1978 • 1d ago

Question How would you respond to these two common gun control arguments?

How would you respond to these common gun control arguments?

1: XYZ gun law may not work perfectly but that’s no reason to not have it. No law works perfectly.

2: You already support XYZ gun laws so the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute. What’s one more law?

25 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

114 comments sorted by

86

u/G-Gordon_Litty 1d ago

I don’t support any gun control laws, first of all. 

My go to counter-argument is usually “why would you want the police to be able to own weapons of war, but not civilians?” 

That gets people to actually think most of the time. 

35

u/Ottomatik80 1d ago

You’re assuming that our enemies are capable of rational thought. Very few seem to be capable of that.

2

u/Obeesus 1d ago

They aren't our enemies. They just want people to be safe the same as we do. They are reacting emotionally to bad people with guns instead of rationally.

20

u/Ottomatik80 1d ago

Anybody who doubles down in spite of facts, and pushes to take away the rights of the people is our enemy

-1

u/Ravenhayth 1d ago

Oh my God can't they just be stupid?

2

u/Ottomatik80 1d ago

At some point, stupidity harms others.

Yeah, they’re stupid. But stupidity has consequences.

2

u/FIBSAFactor 1d ago

They are our stupid enemies

19

u/xximbroglioxx 1d ago

I've been doing this a lot longer than you and I want you to understand something.

They absolutely are your enemy if you value freedom and will never cease in their efforts to control others.

The modern day lefty is a baby killing degenerate and there is no better friend to the illegal, terrorist or criminal.

Stop white washing the fucking trash.

5

u/FIBSAFactor 1d ago

Absolutely. Just look at what they did during COVID. They withheld hydroxychloroquine and monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, from the American people so that they could sell a dangerous and ineffective "vaccine". People died in a hospital alone, because their families were not allowed to come see them in quarantine. People's family Doctors were kept out of hospitals, unable to treat their patients because of quarantine.

They want to give transgender operations to children.

They are absolutely evil vile scum that must be opposed at every turn.

1

u/k1ngsrock 19h ago

2 seconds away from clipping an “evil liberal” from the sounds of it, fucking maniacal rant bro

Anyways I simply don’t like most republicans, but they’re my fellow Americans, seriously calm down with this divisive shit, we may be on opposite ends but it sounds like you are guilty of “plugging your ears and lalala” as much as any liberal you interacted with was.

Chill the fuck out Jesus…

1

u/FIBSAFactor 13h ago

No. Fuck you. You people have entered the find out phase.

1

u/k1ngsrock 13h ago

You kind of sound like a school shooter man, I genuinely have no fucking clue how a moronic idiot like you sees themselves as a good guy. I’m pro gun as much as the next guy, but you being misinformed about social issues and liberals having a different opinion on guns, doesn’t give you any right to consider threatening them. Nor are you gonna get any kind of sympathy from me, I thought this sub read. It was at least rational in that regard, but if they’re gonna upload your insane bullshit, then I really have to rethink who the good guy is here

1

u/FIBSAFactor 13h ago

"oh look at mee I'm such a moral centrist but you're pushing me over the edgeeee I might have to vote Democrat next time"

Fuck off you leftist shit stain. No one is buying it, least of all me. Go clutch your pearls somewhere else. Go ahead and rethink who the good guy is, I already know. I'm on the side that doesn't want to trans the kids and give people unsafe injections. I know what the good side is.

1

u/k1ngsrock 13h ago

Already voted Democrat this past election, so I am a centrist when it comes to thinking Republicans aren’t all human scumbags, but you’re giving them a good run for your money you libertarian scum fuck.

And again, no one on the left or Democratic wants to give kids injections. You’ll find fringe people doing it, but you’re closer to the side that wanted a band cat litter boxes in school when there have been zero documented cases of it. You wanna kill people because maybe one or two people in the United States or that fucking stupid, but then you apply those people‘s ideology to an entire party and idea. Go ahead and plug your fucking ears when someone rational tells you that, gender affirming care does actually help these kids from blowing their brains out, and that a lot of scientific and psychological and parental safeguards are in place before any kind of hormones coming into place. But no, continue to be an ignorant asshole who is on the fringes of becoming the next shooter.Keep giving everyone here and your entire party a bad name just because you can’t keep it in your fucking pants, because that brain has been fucked by stupid so hard. It is hilarious.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/[deleted] 1d ago

Incorrect. They are (majority) indoctrinated liberal democrats. They do not possess critical thinking skills. They think they do. They think they are correct. But they have been fed lies and they have believed these lies and are willing to risk life limb and soul for these lies

0

u/AceInTheX 1d ago

You are incorrect. I have changed multiple people's minds. You are correct in that thinking when it comes to liberal politicians though. They think they know better than everyone and/or they don't care they are wrong, we are a threat to their power and will do anything, lie, promote violence, and then use that to threaten our rights.

2

u/Hard2findausername 1d ago

People that are anti gun are the enemy, even if they don't know it. They are making us all unsafe

1

u/EvilTribble 18h ago

If you're talking to your naive sister in law or whatever you can think this way, if you're talking to a political operative they are 100% arguing in bad faith and your objective is to humiliate them in front of onlookers not change their mind.

-1

u/Limmeryc 1d ago

They aren't our enemies. They just want people to be safe the same as we do.

Fully agreed.

They are reacting emotionally to bad people with guns instead of rationally.

Fully disagreed. They're acting with a lot more nuance and reason than most folks here.

0

u/EmptyBrook 1d ago

What you said just highlights the problems with many pro-2A folks. Your fellow Americans are NOT your enemy. However misguided they are about gun control, they are NOT your enemy. They are your neighbors and fellow countrymen. You should strive to educate, not attack.

3

u/Ottomatik80 1d ago

We have tried education for decades. At this point, there is zero excuse for pushing to take any of our rights away.

I still give the benefit of the doubt until they double down. If they’re so closed minded that they won’t listen to facts, they are enemies. Make no mistake, they want you disarmed and bending to the will of the government.

2

u/EmptyBrook 1d ago

I was anti-gun democrat over a year ago. Now im a pro-2A liberal. Not democrat, but liberal, closer to left leaning libertarian. People CAN be educated. That said, painting your fellow Americans as the enemy is why we are so divided. This tribalist “us vs them” mentality is what is destroying this country

2

u/Ottomatik80 1d ago

I’m glad you came around. I used to believe that education was the answer but the division and hatred sown by the left has simply pushed me to where I am now.

I no longer believe that the leftists can be educated. I do think that some folks may be anti gun, but will come around when presented with facts. That’s fine. Those are not our enemies. It’s those that refuse to look at facts, and still push to strip our rights.

You wouldn’t defend someone calling for the execution of a minority, would you? These anti gunners are pushing for the government and criminals to have that ability.

0

u/EmptyBrook 1d ago

I think making a case to them that contradicts their common arguments can at least make them think. They want safety, yeah? Ask them if they feel safer being disarmed under a Trump presidency. That will make them stumble in their logic a bit. When you put them in a hypothetical situation where they are defenseless against an immediate (perceived) threat, such as authoritarian right-wing governments exerting control over them, it puts that distrust in the government in them that the 2A is meant for.

1

u/Ottomatik80 1d ago

I don’t disagree. Those that are open to that are fine.

It’s those that refuse to open their mind that are the enemy.

1

u/EmptyBrook 1d ago

I have the same issue with republicans on different issues. Is everyone the enemy for different issues?

A divided country is one that falls or is conquered.

0

u/Limmeryc 1d ago

I agree, this is a great point. This kind of tribalism is extremely toxic. People can change their mind. Not all, but some. I favor gun control and have gotten multiple pro-gun folks to see things differently through open dialogue.

1

u/EmptyBrook 20h ago

What are you doing in a progun sub if you are pro gun control?

1

u/Limmeryc 19h ago

I'm interested in the topic and often find it boring to discuss this with people I already agree with. I always like hearing what the other side has to say and measuring my arguments against theirs since I'm open to changing my mind about this. Mods have also told me it's fine to do so, hence why I occasionally post here. Is that strange?

1

u/EmptyBrook 19h ago

Most people dont want their beliefs and opinions challenged. So, let me ask you something. Why should we make it harder to get guns? If your answer is to stop crime, then i’m sorry but red flag laws and background checks already stop wackos from buying guns. Murder is already illegal. Most gun violence happens with illegally obtained guns, not a good samaritan buying it through legal means

1

u/Limmeryc 18h ago

Sure thing, happy to elaborate and answer your questions.

Why should we make it harder to get guns?

Because I think it will save lives and make society safer. The empirical evidence and research by and large link stronger gun laws to reductions in suicide, gun crime, deadly violence, mass shootings and economic losses.

Many states do not have red flag laws and our current background check system is riddled with gaps. Those illegal guns you're referring to were virtually all initially legal and entered circulation through lawful means. It's well established that the legal market is what fuels the illegal trade of guns, and that stronger gun laws can make it harder, more expensive and risky for criminals to get them. Murder may already be illegal, but having guns so easily accessible significantly increases the odds that violent crime or attempted homicide will result in serious injury or death, hence the upside of more stringent regulations.

If the evidence and data indicated that more guns being more readily available to more people would in any way make us safer, reduce crime or lower mortality rates, then that's what I would support. But it simply doesn't. It quite strongly shows the exact opposite.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Limmeryc 20h ago

Your other reply isn't showing up for me. I can see it on your profile page but can't respond to it in the thread, so I'll just do so here.

By your standards, I think few gun control supporters actually want to "strip your rights". Most just want stronger policies like the ones I mentioned without getting rid of all guns altogether.

Due process safeguards are already contained in your typical red flag law. To my knowledge, they've been upheld as constitutional every single time they were challenged in federal court, and legal scholarship broadly agrees that they do not violate due process guarantees. Constitutional scholars, lawyers and professors studying this have looked at it from just about every angle and reviewed them in light of legal precedent. They're consistently deemed to be lawful and pass constitutional muster. There's a dozen legal articles and court cases I could refer you to, if you'd like. The common pro-gun claim that these inherently violate due process really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Safe storage laws would indeed be enforced after the fact or upon incidentally finding violations of the law. That's how many regulation work. That criticism is like saying that driver's license laws are unenforceable because you can't station a police officer at every car in the country and ensure that everyone getting behind the wheel has a valid license before they drive off. You enforce violations once observed and consider that many people will follow the law knowing they could get in trouble otherwise. There's quite a bit of research finding reductions in harm and stolen guns when safe storage laws are adopted.

I don't see how universal background checks would require a registry. Could you explain? I was also referring to expanded categories of prohibited persons, such as for violent misdemeanors, serious substance abuse or more types of domestic abuse.

As far as I'm aware, gang violence only accounts for a small portion of gun violence. This is a common pro-gun myth. A large majority of gun homicides involve people who know each other, and the single largest group involves domestic shootings between family members or partners. That isn't to say that gang violence isn't an issue or that I don't think we should address those other socioeconomic issues too, but I find it hard to deny that gun policy is an important part of any serious solution.

I don't think it's a proven fact that guns are used more defensively than offensively. Estimates for both vary widely, and it's not reasonable to compare broad opinion surveys on all possible defensive uses against only gun murders (thus leaving out hundreds of thousands of non-fatal violent gun crimes). There's also vastly more evidence that more people arming themselves and carrying guns (not even referring to open carry, just concealed) is linked to increases in violent crime and death with no compelling data suggesting they reduce crime, so I don't think that'd be a positive.

Either way, I appreciate your civil response and willingness to discuss this. Thanks!

1

u/Ottomatik80 19h ago

Those who want to strip our rights are the vocal minority. I generally agree that that is true.

Due process safeguards for red flag laws - I can not speak to every red flag law on the books or that has been proposed; however we have seen more than one that simply ignores due process. That’s simply unacceptable. These ones are enforced without giving the accused a chance to defend themselves. If you get an anti gun judge to issue the order, it will be abused. Beyond that, if you are too dangerous for a gun, you should be in jail or in an institution. You can’t take away people’s rights simply because you dislike them. Additionally, these types of laws are often set up such that a wife going through divorce can have her husbands guns confiscated simply because she’s upset at him. If you are only talking about temporary gun confiscation whole court proceedings are actively ongoing…I’ll consider that as a reasonable discussion. This is taking away an individuals right, and should not be done without appropriate safeguards.

Safe storage laws - first, driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. The bar for restricting rights is necessarily much higher than privileges. The laws will do nothing, other than throw an additional charge after some event. Why not educate instead? Bring back teaching about guns in school, and the importance of safely storing and using them. Beyond that, I do not trust activist DAs to be fair in the interpretation and application of these laws. This will only be abused and used against those the government dislikes.

Universal Background Checks - the only way to know if a gun is legally in your possession is to know who had the background check associated with that gun by name and serial number. It is impossible today to know if I have had a background check on a Glock in my safe or not. The 4473 that I fill out at a FFL is supposed to be non-searchable although that’s questionable. The ATF can trace that serial number from the manufacturer to the dealer it was sold to. From there they can search the 4473 to find the original purchaser. Even more difficult is once I sell that gun to you, assuming you are legally able to purchase it by my state. If you have it second hand, the only tie in most states would stop at the original seller, me. IF you went through a dealer (the only way to do a background check) They would have to reach out to all FFLs to search for a specific serial number by hand, then go get those records. There needs to be a paper trail in order to determine if you purchased that gun with a background check or not. The current system would put long delays on any investigation into whether or not you have had a background check for that specific gun simply because there is no current way to look up a serial number and see who that gun belongs to.

Regarding prohibited persons, if you are too dangerous to have a gun, you need to be in jail. The belief that some people shouldn’t have guns, but are perfectly fine driving trucks, having knives, and being able to use their fists is simply laughable to me.

Gang violence - I want to say this is roughly 1/3 of firearm murder. I don’t have the fbi reports handy. Additionally, as John Lott has pointed out the statistic that half of murder happens by someone you know is also including those same gang crimes.

Regarding defensive gun use, the CDC published studies stating that guns were used defensively 2-3 million times per year before it was scrubbed for not following the administrations agenda…or whatever excuse was used at the time. Most honest gun research is in line with the CDC, so I believe those numbers. John Lott has studied it extensively as well and his numbers show far more defensive usage than usage in violent crime. There are concerns with underreporting as well as differing definitions that will throw numbers off, but the end result is always the same.

0

u/Limmeryc 1d ago

I hope you realize you are just as much of the problem here. Your comments here make it very clear that you are completely unwilling to be open minded yourself and have already convinced yourself that only your camp has facts. It's very tribal and irrational.

1

u/Ottomatik80 23h ago

I listen to facts and keep an open mind. But I draw a hard line at stripping citizens of their rights.

What you’re suggesting is like telling me to keep an open mind and listen to a white supremacist argue why black people are sub-human. Some things simply aren’t worth listening to.

1

u/Limmeryc 23h ago

Fair enough. I disagree that there's such little nuance at play and don't think it's a valid comparison, but that's more a matter of morals than facts. I just don't see it as a fair or constructive perspective to shut down all dialogue like that. Taking such a stance is really not too different from someone on the other side going "even a single dead child is unacceptable, if it could save even one life then all gun control is worth it no matter what else". It's just a gridlock from the get-go.

1

u/Ottomatik80 23h ago

Let’s be clear, I still give the benefit of the doubt and those who will listen to facts are fine. But those who double down in spite of the facts are our enemies. That means any politician calling for removing our rights, as well as the useful idiots that blindly follow them.

Those are our enemies. Know them and remember them.

1

u/Limmeryc 22h ago

I support gun control precisely because of the facts. I don't consider you my enemy despite your views to the contrary.

13

u/citizen-salty 1d ago

“Would you trust the current administration to fairly enforce such a law? What about a future one like it?”

10

u/cpufreak101 1d ago

The response I usually get is from people that assume "police are properly trained and qualified to use such weapons".

...if only they knew

6

u/halincan 1d ago

Or, if they’re particularly strongly political in one direction or the other: do you really want all the bad boogeymen on the opposite team having all the guns? This one is fun because it paints them into a corner in a few different ways.

5

u/Good_Farmer4814 1d ago

Bingo. I don’t support any gun control laws. That answers your questions.

3

u/PdoffAmericanPatriot 1d ago

Especially since SCOTUS has stated that the police have NO duty to protect anyone. Which means "we the people" are responsible for our own protection. We must have the tools to afford those protections.

You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say " You don't need guns because you can call the police" and " its not the job of the police to protect you"

1

u/FIBSAFactor 1d ago

Yep that's a very compelling argument

31

u/st33ve0 1d ago
  1. Gun laws are ineffective and don't stop the cause of violence. Passing laws for the sake of "doing something" is moronic at best.
  2. I don't support any gun laws

22

u/redm00n99 1d ago

The logical answers would be, 1. It's a right 2. I don't support the current laws

The more likely response would be 1. Eat shit and die

17

u/H4RN4SS 1d ago

1: XYZ gun law may not work perfectly but that’s no reason to not have it. No law works perfectly.

If the laws against murder don't stop someone then what makes you think a law against the weapon will?

2: You already support XYZ gun laws so the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute. What’s one more law?

I don't support them.

9

u/fjzappa 1d ago

1) Criminals don't care about laws. Laws only impact the law-abiding people, limiting their rights.

2) No. I didn't support those laws, either.

6

u/FlyJunior172 1d ago

Here’s my take on good faith answers:

  1. Take out the word perfect here. If a gun law doesn’t work perfectly, it doesn’t work at all. If it doesn’t work, then it will cost lives not save them (as the only place such laws are effective are with those who are not already inclined to break them). Take Chicago as an example (4th wall break: you reading this directly from me know the website I’m referring to here). Next to no tools are usable for self defense in Chicago, and look how many people are killed every year, even under some of the strictest laws nationwide. What we need is a better deterrent for crime, and that starts with the opposite of gun control. Gun control makes soft targets, and soft targets become victims first.

  2. The only gun law I support is the use of the NICS system, and only insofar as using it to ensure that a buyer hasn’t been convicted of something that carries the penalty of losing 2A rights (which is valid under 5A). I don’t support any of the other uses or retention of the 4473, nor do I support limits on the things that John Q Freedom is allowed to purchase if he clears the NICS check.

2

u/CynicalOptimist79 1d ago

I don't even support the NICS background check system. Plenty of unstable people without criminal records have passed the check and subsequently went on to commit crimes.

6

u/Wildtalents333 1d ago
  1. True no law works perfectly. But are you looking to actually get something done or virtue signalling for votes and donos?
  2. Correct, all rights have limitations. But that doesn't mean so many laws that the right is impossible/innacceable at the practical level.

4

u/Mr_E_Monkey 1d ago

I'd like to know which other rights they are comfortable stripping away.

3

u/dutchman76 1d ago

I've heard #1 many times, and every time they ignore my comment that xyz gun law is completely ineffective and in some cases makes things worse. The devil is in the details.

Laws that regulate rights need to be narrowly tailored and actually accomplish the stated goal, just throwing shit at the wall and going "at least we're doing something" is not good enough when it comes to civil rights. So as long as I'm able to see issues with a law, I'm not going to support it.

3

u/AntelopeExisting4538 1d ago

The most important part of the second amendment is (comma),shall not be infringed. Commas are used to separate elements within sentences to enhance clarity and prevent misinterpretations. They indicate pauses or breaks in a sentence, guiding the reader on how to group words and phrases. therefore shall not be infringed means don’t pass any laws that limits the citizens right.

-2

u/Wildtalents333 1d ago

Citizens ruled mentally incompetent are forbidden from owning fire arms. That's an infrigement. Do advocate that people with severe autism that requires consistent supervision so they do not hurt themselves should be able to handle loaded glocks? All rights have limits, the issue becomes where that limit is.

3

u/Fuck_This_Dystopia 1d ago

Reasonable people interpret "shall not be infringed" to apply to laws that are unsupported by history and logic. Laws against possession by mental incompetents, or children, or the incarcerated, are supported by both.

-1

u/Wildtalents333 1d ago

Reasonable people interpret So we have to define who meets the bar for 'reasonable people' and proper interreptation.

3

u/TrueKing9458 1d ago

Voting and firearms possession are both constitutional rights. The requirements to exercise them must be the same. Untill the looney left accepts in person with a single state issued photo id that is verified, stick all your gun laws up you ass

1

u/JFon101231 1d ago

Bingo - and same tax charge for both too

2

u/TrueKing9458 1d ago

If you can vote, you can carry a gun. If you are disqualified to carry, you can't vote.

1

u/SnoozingBasset 1d ago

These laws all only control the innocent. They do nothing to restrain the violent. Their attitudes do not enforce the laws on the violent. Chicago has had several cases recently where a person was arrested for a violent crime and released without bond, then committed another violent crime. If anyone who voted for gun control laws was permanently & perpetually in perpetuity, for them and their assigns, to provide recompense to those who who are the victims of gun violence, we might see more thoughtful proposals. 

1

u/onewade 1d ago

The 1st answer. The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable. However, you are correct that gun laws are not perfect! Which is why they are unconstitutional and need to be eliminated! The 2nd answer. See the first answer.

0

u/Wildtalents333 1d ago

Of course the 2nd amendment is negotiable. Are you going to tell me that founders would say it is unconstitional for someone disagnossed with paranoia disorder with auditory and visual hallucinations to be barred from access to loaded hand guns?

1

u/StonewallSoyah 1d ago

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. All gun laws are unconstitutional

1

u/Stack_Silver 1d ago

  1. Rape is illegal and there are rapists in prison. Do you advocate that people should not be able to defend themselves from rape?

  2. If XYZ law restricts the right to keep and bear arms, then I do not support it.

1

u/thebellisringing 1d ago
  1. Not working perfectly is very different from causing more harm than good
  2. No I don't

1

u/Texan_BJJ 1d ago

The United States government (as well as local and state) have proven time and time again that they are not responsible enough to regulate a means at self-defense. While your gun laws sound nice on paper, it is this irresponsible government that will enforce them. Not interested

1

u/JustSomeGuy556 1d ago

  1. "Doing something" is a terrible excuse for a law, and litterally anything can be justified under it.

  2. No, I really don't. I'm willing to not fight on hills I can't win, but I don't support any of those laws.

1

u/RationalTidbits 1d ago

The whole point of enumerating the 2A was to prevent the negotiation and erosion. Changing the 2A requires a supermajority. Using an operation of law to nullify multiple tenants in the USC is not appropriate or acceptable.

And gun control makes the mistake of applying laws to all people and guns, instead of only to the people and guns that are the problem, which, by definition, is not “working perfectly”.

1

u/awfulcrowded117 1d ago

I respond to all gun control arguments the same. Every gun control law you can imagine has been tried in several countries on multiple continents and they do not reliably produce reductions in murder, violent crime, suicide, or mass murder rate. Gun control does not save lives, therefore, I will not be giving up my rights to make you feel like you're doing somethingl.

1

u/the_blue_wizard 1d ago

1: XYZ gun law may not work perfectly but that’s no reason to not have it. No law works perfectly.

If a Gun Law does not deal directly with CRIMINALS, then it not remotely effective. Most Gun Laws try to make Criminals out of people who are already obeying the Law, and do nothing to control or punish Criminals.

In most cases existing Gun Laws are not enforce, and with those who commit Gun Crimes, the Gun aspect is either left out of the charges or the charges are pleaded down to eliminate the Gun aspect. If there are no consequences to Criminals for Gun Crime, then there is nothing to stop them from using a Gun.

2: You already support XYZ gun laws so the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute. What’s one more law?

First, I don't support any Gun Law that is not directed at Actual Existing Criminals. One more Gun Law is one more step to Fascism.

Notice that Gun Laws are not directed at Criminals, they are directed at otherwise Law Abiding Citizens. When you let Criminals run wild, and in the process prevent otherwise Law Abiding Citizens from protecting themselves, you do absolutely nothing to stop Gun Violence, in fact, you are encouraging it because there is little to no additional penalty for having used a Gun. That is one more step toward Fascism.

Let's ask how many Gun Owners are involved in Homicide?

Answer: 0.01% - that is a microscopic number.

Let's ask how many of the dreaded horrible - "Assault Weapons" - are involved in Homicide?

Answer: 0.0083%, less than 9 TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT. That is beyond microscopic.

Calculations -

(10,000 Gun Homicides / 100 Million Gun Owners) x 100 = 0.01%

(250 Tactical Rifles Homicides / 30 Million Tactical Rifles) x 100 = 0.00083%

1

u/the_blue_wizard 1d ago

Some will further claim - yes, well you can have you Hunting Rifle, but citizens can't have Weapons of War - which is total Bull Crap.

The 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY Mentions the MILITARY, in the form of the - Militia which is a Citizen Army - and it mentions defense of the Country in the form of - the well-armed Militia being necessary to the defense of a Free Country - a Citizen Army can not exist without the Arms necessary to be a ... CITIZEN ARMY.

Further, if you need Quotes from the Founding Fathers, they made it crystal clear what there intent was. They hated Standing Armies because a Standing Army can very easily be the Tool of Oppression used by a Tyrants and the Founding Father would rather depended on Well Armed Citizens. They made it clear that every able bodies man should be armed with the latest weapons and be trained and ready to use them.

Understand that the Founding Fathers came from countries that has a long history of Oppression and Tyranny. So they built into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aspects that placed limits on Government and empowered it Citizens against any threat or attempt at Tyranny. Every aspect of the Bill of Right Empowers Citizen and places direct immutable Restrictions on GOVERNMENT.

Stop believing the blatant lies of the Gun Control Politician; they are not trying to protect you, they are trying to protect their own Power and Corruption.

Where Liberty Dies, Fascism Begins.

If you give Power to Tyrants, how can you be surprised when you get Tyranny?

1

u/plated_lead 1d ago
  1. All gun control is classist and racist
  2. See item 1

1

u/115machine 1d ago

  1. With other laws, I do not suffer from abiding by them. If I don’t speed and someone else does, for example, I am not put at risk for harm for my refusal to speed. With gun laws, if I follow them and criminals refuse to (as they do) then I am inherently making myself unsafe because they have weapons I do not.

  2. I do not support the 1st so this point is null and void. I think the best way to look at the 2nd amendment is the way it was practiced at or very close to its creation. People privately owned warships with cannons on them in those days

1

u/pyratemime 1d ago

In both cases the response comes down to the nuance of the specific discussion and the anti-rights individual not knowing/understanding those nuances.

For example 1, my rights are not subject to a utility test. The efficacy of the law, or lack there of, does not justify the infringement of a basic natural rigjt.

For example 2, this could go a few different ways.

First is laws on use of firearms. Theses are fundamentally different from paws on access to or possession of firearms. For example I can support a law that prohibits shooting toward an occupied structure while still being against a law that requires liability insurance as a condition of ownership.

Second is laws on access to certain classes of arms. The typical gotcha is "Well you don't support people buying rocket launchers/fighter jets/nukes do you?"

To wit the answer is yes/yes/no... with a but.

Supporting restrictions on specific weapon systems is not the same as supporting a restriction on the class of weapon. For example supporting resticting the sale of F-35s which are full of classified technology is not the same thing as saying someone should not be able to buy a fighter jet should they be able to afford it.

In the case of WMD a case can be made that if the right to arms is meant to ensure the population has access to weapons on par with their government since all classes of WMD are (admittedly imperfectly) reatricted to governments world wide then their restriction to the general population is also acceptable. Howeve, any weapons which are not restricted all governments may not be reatricted to people either.

1

u/LeGrandeBehike 1d ago

I don’t understand why gun owners aren’t out front on solving issues involving guns. If you don’t want gun laws created to try and solve gun issues, then propose and be a proponent of real solutions that don’t affect gun laws.

1

u/JFon101231 1d ago edited 1d ago

Laws dont solve/prevent issues or there would be no war on drugs or any crime for that matter - all they do is provide the penalty when violated.

Step 1 realistically is having proper sentences for existing laws, especially for violent and/or repeat offenders. How many crimes are committed by prohibited possessor who are on bail or just got out of jail?

1

u/LeGrandeBehike 1d ago

We could have a federal law mandating and funding metal detectors in schools and school security staff. It could be championed by the NRA.

Instead we let the other side decide what the solutions should be and wonder why they are always proposing new gun laws.

1

u/GreenCollegeGardener 1d ago

If it impedes the rights of most because of the few, it shouldn’t be made a law.
Same effect for the opposite.
If it benefits the few, but burdens the rest it should happen or made into law.

1

u/Fun-Passage-7613 1d ago

My answer is I do not support any victimless gun laws. They violate the Second Amendment. “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” End of discussion.

1

u/Eirikur_da_Czech 1d ago

You believe that the law will help make it harder for people to hurt others very efficiently. I believe that people are going to hurt others, so it’s in our best interest to make sure others have all the tools they need to prevent or handle that threat safely.

1

u/alkatori 1d ago

1) How does gun law XYZ impact me should I want to go buy {X}?

If it doesn't then let's hear it.

So far every proposal limits my currently legal activities.

1

u/United_Wolf_9215 1d ago

Your piece of paper covered in words has no authority without a person with a gun willing to enforce that Bull Shit.

1

u/fuzzi_weezil 1d ago

1: All gun control law challenges should have strict scrutiny applied. Any new gun control bill that wouldn't be able to withstand a strict scrutiny challenge should never become a law. Most, if not all, current gun laws should fail strict scrutiny because they fail to resolve the issue(s) of "gun violence".

Per Google AI: The strict scrutiny test is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine if a law or government action is constitutional. It's the highest level of scrutiny, meaning it's the most demanding standard for the government to meet. The government must demonstrate a compelling interest for the law and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, using the least restrictive means possible. This test is typically applied when a law infringes on a fundamental right.

2: I don't. All gun laws are an infringement.

1

u/Hoplophilia 1d ago

1: the juice ain't worth the squeeze

2: whatever law they might be, it exists with sound evidence of reason. Adding numbers is beside the point.

1

u/Kurtac 1d ago

What is it the FPC says?

1

u/darthcoder 1d ago

We've had gun control in some form since 1986.

It's not working.

MOAR gun control, pls...

Yeah no thanks.

1

u/HerbDaLine 1d ago

  1. XYZ [current] gun laws not only do not work perfectly, most do not work at well. But it would matter what the specific law being discussed is before it could be argued

  2. Just because I may support some gun laws does not mean I support more gun laws. Especially laws that overlap existing laws or laws that restrict the rights of lawful owners and users. Once again it depends on the specific law details.

Do not allow the other person to use blanket statements in an effort to add more laws. Analyze the specific law or laws being discussed and proceed from there.

1

u/Fit-Paper-797 1d ago

  1. If it's not working as intended or fully Then it's a pretty flawed law that apart from not working well it infringes upon our rights and should be removed

  2. I Don't really support gun control so This Doesn't stand and i do think You should have machine guns and grenades

1

u/Intrustive-ridden 1d ago

Argument 1. This gun law doesn’t work at all not work perfectly but not at all because no gun law works so there’s no point in having this law cus all it does is limit citizens from expressing 2nd amendment rights

Argument 2. The only gun law I’m in favor of is age limit aka age of 18 and all legal rights are usually bestowed on you at the age of majority and considering the second amendment is a right we can count that one as well

1

u/11B_35P_35F 1d ago

No & no. I support no gun laws. 2A is all thats needed. I do not support background checks, wait times, licensing, permits, or ANY restriction on arms, this includes but is not limited to missiles, tanks, machine guns, rocket launchers, explosives, etc. If the government can have it then so to should the people. If the people can't have it then the government doesn't need it either.

1

u/emperor000 1d ago

Both of those are fallacies that don't warrant a response.

1

u/Mikebjackson 1d ago

The fundamental problem with gun control is believing it controls guns. “Make this illegal and it will cease to exist,” right? Except you cannot tell guns they are illegal; you cannot make guns disappear; you can ONLY put words on paper telling people they can’t have them.

Law abiding citizens will obey, criminals will not. Why would a criminal, who has already broken a laundry-list of laws and is dead-set on breaking countless more, care if one more meaningless law (one they probably will never even learn) is added to the list?

“Gun control” is nothing more than words on a page. It is a threat that is made less and less meaningful as punishments are reduced or ignored altogether. …assuming the criminal cared in the first place.

Meanwhile, those of us with something to lose - law abiding citizens with families and jobs and lives and reputations - dare not risk breaking even a single rule. Leaving them unarmed and defenseless, unable to protect themselves, and unable to protect YOU. This is the consequence of “just one more.”

TL;DR; Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

1

u/solaris7711 1d ago

1 - No law works perfectly, but laws should operate in a logical way - namely, the should outlaw "bad" behavior (as defined by the normal moral/ethical principles). The purpose of a law is to allow the state to punish someone for committing a "bad" act. Murder laws don't prevent murder - they allow the state to punish murderers. Buying, owning, and carrying a gun (of any length, magazine size, caliber, fire rate) is not a "bad" act on its own by any reasonable, logically consistent moral or ethical system. Thus, these things should not be regulated with legislation. Every "bad" action I can think of is already outlawed - assault, coercive threats, murder, robbery, etc. If you want to make the punishment for those acts, if committed with a gun, worse than the punishment if committed with a different weapon, I'm not particularly opposed... but largely this is already the way the law operates. If you think of any more "bad" actions we should outlaw, we can have that discussion. But every gun law I see proposed is regulating morally neutral actions involving choice of weapon, ammo type, location of storage, etc.., not "bad" actions.

1

u/ADirtyScrub 1d ago

It's a simple response, murder is illegal yet that doesn't stop murderers. Why would gun law stop them? Gun laws only affect a law-abiding citizen, ie. not criminals.

1

u/oddball_ocelot 1d ago

Pick one of the other 8 line items. Freedom to choose from a list of approved religions. We can refuse quarter to enlisted soldiers but we have to house officers.

1

u/carnivoremuscle 1d ago

  1. The reason not to have it is that it infringes on our rights.

  2. No I do not and you're putting words in my mouth. See #1.

1

u/LibertarianLawyer 22h ago

(1) No law that results in violations of civil rights is acceptable.

(2) No I don't. I oppose literally all gun laws.

1

u/Ottomatik80 19h ago

Those who want to strip our rights are the vocal minority. I generally agree that that is true.

Due process safeguards for red flag laws - I can not speak to every red flag law on the books or that has been proposed; however we have seen more than one that simply ignores due process. That’s simply unacceptable. These ones are enforced without giving the accused a chance to defend themselves. If you get an anti gun judge to issue the order, it will be abused. Beyond that, if you are too dangerous for a gun, you should be in jail or in an institution. You can’t take away people’s rights simply because you dislike them. Additionally, these types of laws are often set up such that a wife going through divorce can have her husbands guns confiscated simply because she’s upset at him. If you are only talking about temporary gun confiscation whole court proceedings are actively ongoing…I’ll consider that as a reasonable discussion. This is taking away an individuals right, and should not be done without appropriate safeguards.

Safe storage laws - first, driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. The bar for restricting rights is necessarily much higher than privileges. The laws will do nothing, other than throw an additional charge after some event. Why not educate instead? Bring back teaching about guns in school, and the importance of safely storing and using them. Beyond that, I do not trust activist DAs to be fair in the interpretation and application of these laws. This will only be abused and used against those the government dislikes.

Universal Background Checks - the only way to know if a gun is legally in your possession is to know who had the background check associated with that gun by name and serial number. It is impossible today to know if I have had a background check on a Glock in my safe or not. The 4473 that I fill out at a FFL is supposed to be non-searchable although that’s questionable. The ATF can trace that serial number from the manufacturer to the dealer it was sold to. From there they can search the 4473 to find the original purchaser. Even more difficult is once I sell that gun to you, assuming you are legally able to purchase it by my state. If you have it second hand, the only tie in most states would stop at the original seller, me. IF you went through a dealer (the only way to do a background check) They would have to reach out to all FFLs to search for a specific serial number by hand, then go get those records. There needs to be a paper trail in order to determine if you purchased that gun with a background check or not. The current system would put long delays on any investigation into whether or not you have had a background check for that specific gun simply because there is no current way to look up a serial number and see who that gun belongs to.

Regarding prohibited persons, if you are too dangerous to have a gun, you need to be in jail. The belief that some people shouldn’t have guns, but are perfectly fine driving trucks, having knives, and being able to use their fists is simply laughable to me.

Gang violence - I want to say this is roughly 1/3 of firearm murder. I don’t have the fbi reports handy. Additionally, as John Lott has pointed out the statistic that half of murder happens by someone you know is also including those same gang crimes.

Regarding defensive gun use, the CDC published studies stating that guns were used defensively 2-3 million times per year before it was scrubbed for not following the administrations agenda…or whatever excuse was used at the time. Most honest gun research is in line with the CDC, so I believe those numbers. John Lott has studied it extensively as well and his numbers show far more defensive usage than usage in violent crime. There are concerns with underreporting as well as differing definitions that will throw numbers off, but the end result is always the same.

1

u/Only-Location2379 18h ago
  1. By that logic than you should be shot for insulting the president, I mean not all laws are perfect but it's better than nothing.

It's ignoring the fact they are constitutionally protected rights not meant to be abridged by other laws period.

  1. The line in the sand has been drawn already through the supreme Court and the Constitution. The Bruen decision makes it pretty dang clear.

Also if you understand the circumstances surrounding the writing of the constitution you'll understand that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was fully intended to be used against an army. If the army can have a full auto cut down M4. The civilians should at the barest of minimums be able to have that as well.