Voter turnout is ludicrously better when people think Dems are coming for yer guns though.
it’s also pretty lit when you can legalize weed…
Nah stoners are lazy as shit. Why do you think legalization is taking so damn long
If Dems cared about weed half as much as the right cares about guns it woulda been federally legal a decade ago
“They’re coming for yer guns” translates very well into gun sales…
I’ve always almost felt bad for the gun industry. They’re caught in such a sticky place.
If Dems win, they’re taking yer guns. If Republicans win, they’re not buying yer guns because the fear is gone.
Imagine spending millions upon millions every year lobbying for a guy knowing it’s going to tank your financials if he wins
So you’d be in favor of making it illegal for folks with a criminal history to buy guns? Or do folks only have to be law abiding in the future?
Like Carlin said, think about how dumb the average American is. Now realize half of America is dumber than that. A quote that I think nicely compliments this thread.
It might surprise you to know there are already laws in place restricting certain classes of criminals from owning guns.
Do you think the Bill of Rights should only apply to peoples of certain intelligence?
It’s a long game/short game kind of wager.
Besides, it’s not like somebody says “OK. That’s enough for me.”. Hobbiests just like cool new stuff.
I’m kinda the same way with fly rods. Like the 6 or so that I have now somehow ran out of cast, so I have a few more on deck that I’m building.
I can’t answer for anyone else, but I’m in favor of making it legal for any free person over 18(that’s a somewhat arbitrary number, but it works for military service) to buy a gun. If a person is too dangerous to possess a gun, he is too dangerous to roam free in society.
I think anything written hundreds of years ago to guide society probably needs some updating to be relevant in today’s world.
Yeah, but owning guns should be a civic responsibility, not a hobby. Guns shouldn’t be fun.
There is an amendment process for just that reason. It’s just easier to legislate by tilting the parchment at a certain angle and reading it in the proper light.
*One other point: it wasn’t written to guide society. It was written to set new guidelines for the federal government.
I was speaking generally- relating it to religious texts where there are various levels of fundamentalist interpretation.
Put simply, I think guns should be a privilege, not a right. Applicable to a young frontier country that just won independence from the British empire, and surrounded by other empires, while trying out a new system of govt they didn’t want to turn tyrannical. Things are different now. I don’t think it should be a right. I think it should be a privilege enjoyed by law abiding, sane, responsible folks.
Possession of guns IS a privilege. If one can’t or won’t pay buy one, none is provided.
That’s a fair point, if playing a bit of semantics. So I think we make it a more difficult to obtain privilege by making folks prove they are law abiding, sane, and responsible.
It can’t be helped if things that go boom And make something else far away go poof coincides with what is also considered fun.
Tell me that blasting 2 lite bottles full of water with an FAL or turning telephone books into confetti with a shotgun isn’t both fun and civicly responsible.
There are people who will only be dangerous if they possess a gun. Just like there are people who shouldn’t drive.
Yeah, but the average citizen with guns isnt the thing keeping our govt from going tyrannical.
Or, frankly, gonna do a whole lot if it does.
Interesting idea. How would that be done? For how long would one have to prove that he had not littered, or been drunk in a bar?
Do you actually mean “prove they are not law breakers, not insane, and not irresponsible? I may be mistaken, but I think it’s supposed to be pretty tough to prove a negative.