If so, then you don't need to own so many guns. I do not respect your right to bear arms, so you can take that argument home.
Good news: The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on some subjective notion of "need" And, good of you to agree that there is no justification for additional unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding I know. People like you are why we have the 2nd Amendment.
So you're saying that you need your gun for protection now less than ever?[/QUOTE] Likely so, not that your point matters. I need all of my guns for "all lawful purposes", and that's protected by the Second Amendment.
No, they want The United States government to have the same level of control over her citizenry that those countries do. It has absolutely nothing to do with curbing crime.
Most of my guns are for lawful purposes other than self defense, so my use model for my guns hasn't changed. So you argue from a position of fantasy. Noted.
I believe that we will ultimately have a civil war over gun rights. and when it is over, I believe the two remaining major parties in the USA will be social conservative republicans and the libertarian wing of the GOP
I am sure you realized by now that you are addressing a nest of right-wing 2A fundamentalists. No changing their minds. Rational argument does not dispel the belief in the sacred 2A. There are 393 million guns in the US, not counting millions of illegal firearms. We have 1/5 of the world’s population and have 45% of the privately owned guns in the world. We have a third world homicide rate and more mass shootings than anywhere in the world. All those firearms do not wear out and 40 million new guns were purchased in ‘20 alone. Sounds like a nasty buildup of tools specifically designed to kill and these guys are all for it. Any gun regulation will leave most guns still in private hands. What to do? Highly restrict access to ammunition.
You cannot present a rational argument for the imposition of unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding. Thus, you have no rational argument. I use the 423,000,000 figure -- 1.2 / person. There are zero illegal firearms in the US. There are people who cannot legally possess a firearm; their firearms are not illegal, their possession is. The rest of the world should be embarrassed of itself. Catch up, clods. Because....? Be prepared to defend the post-hoc fallacy you will surely offer And >38 million in 2021. Good news. What guns are specifically designed to kill? Prove your response to be true. And then: the 2nd Amendment is all about preserving he means for people to kill other people -- doesn't that mean the weapons most protected by the constitution are those specifically designed to kill? Why do you think the ownership an use of ammunition is severable from the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and thus not equally protected by the 2nd?
If we are going global, Who commits the vast majority of murder? Government. The vast majority of those being murdered: Unarmed people. There is no way to restrict access to ammunition to criminals. I grew up with guns and could make my own ammo from age 9. Its okay that you know little about guns and ammo.
What percentage of that '393 million guns' are used to kill? If guns were the actual problem, and there are 393 million of them, don't you think that the individual murder rate per gun would be higher? Second part, what percentage of homicides by gun are committed by a registered gun? What percentage of homicides are committed as a first time criminal offense ? Those numbers will tell you the true story.
The Second Amendment does exist. "Rational argument" to deny that isn't rational. Have you read Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen? You really should. Ammunition is also protected by the Second Amendment. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1543809.html
Federal law prohibits anyone from certain categories from acquiring ammunition, but in my state there are no requirements. No age limits for purchase, no license to purchase, no background checks, no license to sell ammunition, no age limit for possession of ammunition and no record of purchase. If there were restrictions, all legal by the way, that could put a dent in illegal gun use. And you are against that? Let the rationalizations begin.
Really? How many people died because Germans read Mein Kampf and believed it? How many died because they read Maos “little red book” ? Or read DasKapital? Words inspire people to do good or to do evil. The pen is mightier than the sword, the pen has killed far more.
Doesn’t matter. Words inspire far more death through all kinds of means than deaths from people using guns.
