If such a large majority agrees with gun control, what's stopping us?

I expect you to demonstrate that this post is not hypocritical by sending the same to the posters that I responded to. Please provide links when you do.

 

He shouldn't have been released.

Or, since Maine has red flag laws, his guns could have been confiscated. That didn't work, though.

 

Then explain why countries with fewer guns and more gun control laws have FEWER gun related deaths than the US.

If taking away guns is going to "cost lives" then why hasn't it in England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada?

 

We've tried to be nice. You all insist on insulting us.

 

Those countries don't have as many criminals as The United States does. Plus, Japans suicide rate is higher that The United States suicide rate.

 

Yes, you're right...my .22 caliber handgun is quite the assault weapon. Christ...smfh. Hahahaha

 

Are you saying that if the people of this nation amend the second amendment that you will take up arms against them?

Kinda proving their point.

 

I'm sorry to see you repeat the falsehood the NRA has been spreading for years. It's evidence of how effective it's been. Ask anyone who opposes enhanced gun control and they'll tell you "Obama was coming for my guns." Cuz that's the lie spewed by the NRA, belied by the facts.

Gun control group gives Obama an ‘F’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/59139-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f/

When Obama was elected, gun rights supporters feared the new president would take away their guns; their worries spiked gun sales in the days and weeks before Obama’s inauguration. The National Rifle Association (NRA) said Obama would be the most anti-gun president in U.S. history.

But the Brady Campaign, a leading advocacy group for stricter gun laws, said Obama actually has done little to clamp down on firearms since being elected. Instead, the president has signed into law two bills that favored gun-rights supporters.

Why does the NRA tell such blatant lies? Because they work. Their goal, increase gun sales since they are a lobby for gun manufacturers.

 

My two suspicions are proven: 1- You jumped into a discussion about gun regulation with only what Fox and their echo-chamber has fed you, and 2- Binary thinking is your ONLY argument.

 

What do you think our founders would have done?

That’s what I’d do.

 

I haven't watched FOX since 2000 which proves my suspicion of how much you like to make ridiculous assumptions about people. Sorry pointing out facts confuses you to the point where you are only able to keep repeating the same tired phrase.
Would you be so kind as to remind me which liberal leaning news site/network has referred to handguns as "assault" weapons?

 

So make a list of the “common sense” gun regulations. And we will agree to it. Under the terms that we have a non-rescindable guarantee that there will be no more “common sense” gun or ammunition regulations in the future. No matter how many unfortunate atrocities may occur.

Deal?

 

Since we don't live in England, France, Germany, Japan and Canada, why don't I explain a few things closer to home for you?

1) I live in an area where just about everybody owns at least one firearm, and we have zero gun violence out here. In other words, more guns, fewer laws, no gun violence.

2) Guns have been a ubiquitous feature of American life since its inhabitants were subjects of the British Crown, and to reinforce the point, the first document affirming the individual right to bear arms was the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Why is it, despite the proliferation of arms, that gun violence didn't become a problem in this country until the last several decades?

How can these things be?

I learned a long time ago that gun violence is just a symptom of other underlying problems that many of us are unwilling to discuss, such as this:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder — most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure — that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable...
--Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), 1965

A little historical context - Moynihan issued his prescient warning while his colleagues were enacting the War on Poverty and Great Society programs of the mid-1960s that predictably, in Moynihan's mind at least, produced the gun violence that became a problem at the same time the first generation of men Moynihan talked about reached their late teens and adulthood.

And while I currently live in an area where there is no gun violence, despite the proliferation of firearms, I've lived in areas that aren't that way. I was born in Chicago and have lived in other cities where you see the connection between violence in general and gun violence in specific to the broken individuals, households and communities Moynihan warned his colleagues about 58 years ago.

We don't have to violate the 2A rights of law abiding citizens to reduce gun violence in this country, but all too many people aren't even interested in discussing, much less solving, things like the disastrous consequences of our nation's social welfare programs or the laxity of certain politicians, DAs and judges who encourage crime, violence and unsafe conditions in our communities, etc., because it's not in their personal, political and ideological interest to do so, nor is it in their interest for others to do so.

 

I don't think any is acceptable. But obviously the firearm with 60 rounds is going to be more destructive with all other variables being the same. The other issue with this is it's not a black and white issue as you have pointed out.

 

If they were alive today to witness the carnage caused by the SC's absurd interpretation of the 2nd A I have no doubt their common sense and wisdom would put them squarely in favor of strict gun control measures. Moreover, I think they would be especially critical of the originalist's pretention in thinking they know what the Founders intended to happen over 200 years in to the future.

 

Lol so what argument do you think the founders would make in the face of an oppressive government? That’s the ENTIRE reason for the second. For the people to have the ability to defend themselves. If you think they would give that right up because some people died then you’ve never read the federalist papers. Do you think they didn’t consider the risks of the 2nd amendment? Of course they did but the necessity of having the ability to defend one’s person overrides that risk.

 

In fact a government taking our firearms is EXAFTLY the reason they put the “shall not be infringed” part in there.

 

One of the primary roadblocks to the sort of gun control you see polls pushing is probably a lack of ability and will to enforce it. As an example, we have mandatory background checks, mandatory gun safe storage laws, and banned trasfer of 'assault weapons' here in WA. Yet we have only convicted one person for violating the MBGC in the 7ish years since adopting the law (and that was after the weapon was used to shoot someone). I havnt heard of a single case of anyone being convicted for failure to safely store a weapon, and there is no legal method for the authorities to check without a warrant, which requires a crime to have already been committed. We have thousands of prohibited persons reported every year for trying to buy a gun, and law enforcement doesnt investigate because they dont have the resources for it (especially since some depts were defunded), and 3/4 of our counties tend to elect Sheriffs that refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun regulations. The state has made no effort to try to compel them to, and our state constitution doesnt really leave much room for anyone to try anyway, as the elected county Sheriff is the 'Chief Law Enforcment Official' within their jurisdiction. What this means (and popular voting demographics support) is that the densely populated left-leaning regions (that generate the bulk of the gun crime) want more gun control and the sparsely populated right-leaning regions (with much less gun crime) refuse to go along with it. What I think it ultimately comes down to is the urban centers unwilling and unable to force the rural areas to comply. They dont even have the resources to enforce more regs in their own tiny jurisdictions where its popular, let alone the entire countryside where enforcement would be resisted. Just administrating the MBGCs costs our state an extra $10M/year, and as our murder-by-shooting rate continues to climb proportionally with the rest of the nation, it hard to justify wasting even more resources on something that doesnt return any measureable results.

 

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written the arms available to the average citizen was the same as the arms available to the government so it made sense that an armed citizenry could fight an oppressive government.

Today, 250 years later in the early 21st century, the idea that the arms of the average citizen could fight off an oppressive government is fantasy. What's your little semi automatic weapon going to do against a tank or a helicopter, let alone a fighter jet or a cruise missle?

 

Having read the Founders' support for the individual right to bear arms, be it for hunting, personal-defense or the preservation of our liberty, I have no doubt you are wrong, just as you are wrong about the SC's interpretation of the 2A. Even before the United States existed the individual right to bear arms was affirmed in this land, and the Founders wisely made a point of extending that affirmation in our Constitution.

 

No wonder you have been repeating arguments from 2000.

 

Tell that to the Afghanistan and Iraqi militants who held on for decades before they ran us out with our tail between our legs while murdering our people

 

So lets put government in charge of our safety. Government knew this killer was dangerous and did what?

Why do you believe that someone willing to risk the penalty of committing murder would not risk the penalty of breaking a gun law?

 

Are you claiming that we were an oppressive government in Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

What argument?