[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] daskapitalist 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Dangit. Why do you have to be right?

1
10

[–] White_Raven 1 point 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Correct. They are for self defense against a tyrannical government first and foremost. Since we don't have a revolution every day, hunting and self defense against those who would harm or kill us or others comes second.

Suicide and car accidents are a combined 70K (30K~ and 41K~ respectively) per year in the united states, which in my research are among the leading non-natural causes of death. Over 2.5 million people die each year, many from diseases and organ failure (it could be argued that natural "old age" death is because of such things, but I'll leave that specific stat out, since we all die eventually anyway).

Homicides are at their lowest in history (world wide, as well as in the United States specifically). Firearm related deaths are at about 9K~ per year, and these include cops killing people, gangs killing each other (which has been happening for far longer than firearms have been around), crimes of passion, etc. If we take away the cops shooting when they didn't need to, crimes of passion (doable and done for millennia without the aid of a firearm), and gang violence (once again an age old issue), firearm related deaths drop below 10k a year. Out of an on going yearly death rate of about 2.5 million, in a population of 340 million that is ever growing as the homicide and firearm related homicide rate is ever decreasing, it becomes clear that firearms are only an issue to those with an agenda, the severely ignorant, and the misinformed.

School shootings have been happening since before America was a nation. Unless you are literally mentally retarded, you will understand without links that homicides/murders have been happening since before recorded history. Murder is the problem, not firearms.

"Well nobody is going to try to control America or invade us etc."

Maybe so, maybe not. The brilliant men who wrote the constitution did so with their very best understanding of future proofing in mind. They didn't give decide to protect personal firearms only for invasion purposes, but explicitly stated that even if our own government were to turn on us we could defend ourselves. They were thinking "There's not enough land left in this world to start a new country again, so let us be prepared to defend this one if another tyranny rises, even within our own walls."

If you're against guns because of murder, why not be against literally everything that can be used for evil? Let us ban anything with a sharp edge for cutting, or anything with weight to it for bashing. Let's ban vehicles. Let's just go ahead and use 1984 as a god damn blueprint. let's give up our privacy for "security".

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin: Author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, and beloved diplomat of the United States of America.

0
1

[–] oowensby 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Also, at the time, anyone could have sent off a postal money order to their favorite warehouse of army surplus equipment, and received, through return US Mail, their very own M1 carbine.

2
-1

[–] Devildetails 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

M1 carbine would not under most definitions today be considered an assault rifle, a battle rifle maybe. Also, are we really arguing that felons should have firearms? Should violent felons have firearms? Should murderers who used a gun? Who should not have a gun, anyone? The supreme Court has rolled that the second amendment is not an absolute right free of restriction, you may not have a rocket launcher, a tank, etc., et al.

Mind you I own a gun, but there are people who I am fine with them not having the right any more. The people who assassinated Mr. X, did they use a blow dart? And what has Obama done till take away guns? Can anyone tell me that? Can anyone give me one thing?

Last item here, you really planning on fighting the government with your gun? I have been seeing the blue angels flying overhead, you ain't gonna win with what you got. And I will never let you get more than you got right now legally because I trust you way less than someone who has at least sworn to uphold the constitution.

1
0

[–] Hereforthekeks 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Who should not have a gun, anyone?

Retarded people, that's pretty much it. If every person in the nation were armed, then they wouldn't have to worry as much about who else was armed, would they?

"An armed society is a polite society."

0
1

[–] Devildetails 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Syria and Afghanistan are pretty well armed.

0
1

[–] kirkis 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I've always been against armed felons, particularly armed robbers, but this makes a good point. Because the 2nd amendment really is about controversial figures like Malcolm X defending themselves.

0
0

[–] oowensby ago 

I might agree that those that commit violent crime such as rape. armed robbery, or aggravated assault should be restricted; but, what about non-violent felons - should their civil rights be curtailed? If, after completely finishing their sentence, a released felon is too unsafe to allow to vote, qualify for a professional license, or own a gun, how are they safe enough to release into society at all?

0
0

[–] pepepepepe ago 

God damn it Malcom, get your finger off that trigger.