Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[Brian37]

There are more restrictions on BB guns than on actual guns.

And so many people don't see a problem with that.

---

If you go for a walk down the road and know there are dogs that might chase you and you carry a big stick...do you carry it with the expectation that you may use it?

If I thought that I would never have to use my sidearm, I would not wear it.  But...then I would not have been able to kill my attackers.  And, neither would I have felt safe in those few instances when strangers that made me feel creepy were on my property.

I have never had an accident, but I wear my seatbelt every single time.

I bet that criminals intend to use their guns when they venture out with them.  It is for courts to decide it they intended to murder or committed man-slaughter instead.

When I use my gun to commit murder, then I am a criminal.  Until then I am a law-abiding citizen just like you....or I assume that you are one, too.

-Jeanne

Do you wear your gun to Wal-mart?

---

Set me straight then. What should I do? What steps should I take to be the responsible gun owner you would have me be?

Don't put other people in danger. You're far more likely to shoot someone who doesn't need it than to kill a bad guy. 

My guns were locked in safes when I had them at home. Now they're locked in safes at a local range. When I was  a young man I was taught how to take care of myself without a gun before I was allowed to fire a gun. Eventually I taught young men how to take care of themselves with and without guns.

BINGO! 

Shooting is not the most important thing in survival, remaining calm, muscle memory training and using deadly force as a last resort. If you don't think in those terms of training, you are asking for trouble.

This is what pisses me off with people on ANY subject. They always scream "What would you know". I get the same crap with economic issues too. "What would you know Brian, you don't have an economic degree, you aren't rich", then I point to a billionaire and say, "Ok, fine, don't want to listen to me? How about someone who is rich who would agree with me".

OK KUSA, here is another person who has experience with firearms who is telling you your attitude SUCKS. 

And we are NOT saying that to take your rights away, we are saying that to warn you your dreamy eyed utopia attitude is far more likely to hurt you. Guns are not toys and not something you simply say, "I can hit a target" and one mistake with a gun and your good intent won't mean shit.

---

It all comes down to premeditation, as to whether a killing is murder or not. Does someone carry a firearm with the expectation that they may use it?

If you go for a walk down the road and know there are dogs that might chase you and you carry a big stick...do you carry it with the expectation that you may use it?

If I thought that I would never have to use my sidearm, I would not wear it.  But...then I would not have been able to kill my attackers.  And, neither would I have felt safe in those few instances when strangers that made me feel creepy were on my property.

I have never had an accident, but I wear my seatbelt every single time.

I bet that criminals intend to use their guns when they venture out with them.  It is for courts to decide it they intended to murder or committed man-slaughter instead.

When I use my gun to commit murder, then I am a criminal.  Until then I am a law-abiding citizen just like you....or I assume that you are one, too.

-Jeanne

STOP MAKING THIS ABOUT RIGHTS............. NOBODY IS OUT TO GET YOU!

Legal at time of buy, does not prevent someone from making that one mistake after the legal purchase.

Guns are not forgiving, once you pull that trigger you cannot turn back time.

And even without guns, I have had a lifetime of morons playing street lawyer in their heads with drinking and driving, driving while high, and even "If you say that about my mother I fucking kick your ass", seen lots of people end up getting themselves needlessly hurt, even if they are in the right, because they work up a utopia in their head.

I have no felony criminal record myself. I have no history of violence myself. I could go into a gun shop right now and legally purchase a firearm. But I also suffer from anxiety and depression and drink too. So do you think those problems are a good thing to mix with firearms? 

No? I would agree. So if you agree with that then you cannot make this about you and you alone. You suffer from the same selection bias and sample rate error I see with theists who scream "you want to ban religion"  and if you are an atheist, you know damned well that isn't pragmatic even if you wanted to.

NOBODY is out to take away anyone's rights. We simply want better vetting. You need food, you don't need caviar. You need a car, you want a Lamborghini. 

Regulations are about safety, not bans. I personally wont own a gun, mainly because I accept I cant hit a target to save my life, but also knowing my biological family's history of anxiety and depression, that is my own self awareness. Unfortunately not everyone is willing to accept their own limitations.

What if someone who does have mental illness but has no record at time of buy kills your loved one? "Oh well, sucks to be you". I doubt you would make that argument and I hope you don't ever have to face that in reality. I hope you never have a family member or friend commit suicide or have their kid accidentally  shoot themselves or someone else. I hope you never accidentally hurt yourself with your own gun. I think your ATTITUDE sucks, and does not match reality.

Year after year and decade after decade the data of gun injury and death has always shown that the user is more likely to hurt themselves or someone they know than successfully defend themselves from a stranger.

"I have the right" is not what we are against. Just like you have the right make the attempt to get a drivers license, and if you prove you can drive, that does not mean you have the legal right speed 50mph in a 25mph school zone.

Rights come with responsibility. "Legal at time of buy" does not mean you are going into that buy with a pragmatic attitude. When you start off with that argument you are arguing from emotion, not pragmatism. 

YES YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A GUN, but mentally ill people should be vetted, domestic abusers should not have them, mixing guns and alcohol is just fucking bat shit insane. YES you do have a right to a firearm, but you have no right to a military jet armed with missiles. You don't need big clips or spray weapons. YES you can have a gun, but you also need to take it seriously and treat it always like a armed bomb. If you don't treat it like that you are far more likely to hurt yourself.

Now just like KUSA, I defy him and you to show me anywhere in this post I am calling for a ban on all firearms.

[KUSA]

Now just like KUSA, I defy him and you to show me anywhere in this post I am calling for a ban on all firearms.

You got me on that one. Dang, I need to try harder.

[Brian37]

Now just like KUSA, I defy him and you to show me anywhere in this post I am calling for a ban on all firearms.

You got me on that one. Dang, I need to try harder.

BULLSHIT and you know it.

I don't want all firearms banned. Saying you don't need big clips or spray riffles does not mean an all out ban. Saying we don't do enough to prevent the mentally ill or violent felons or domestic abusers from getting them, ALSO NOT A CALL FOR AN ALL OUT BAN.

You can legally buy a car. But you cant drive a an armed military tank on a public highway, much less own one. 

Seat belts are not anti car. Speed limits are not anti car. Saying we need to get off burning fossil fuels, also not anti transportation.

Idiots like you would rightfully agree that you would not want your gun used unauthorized. I agree ONLY YOU should be using it. But you are so stuck in the past, and paranoid you wont even consider makers moving to smart guns which would prevent unauthorized use.

The Second Amendment was never intended as "anything goes" free for all. Just like "no taxation without representation, never meant no taxes at all" With rights come responsibility, and with political pluralism which is what the west rightfully values, one lobby does not get to dictate by itself. Not getting everything you want all the time is not oppressing you. 

YOUR EGO, is the problem, not your right to own a firearm. Your "anything goes" bullshit is the problem, not gun ownership itself. But more importantly FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, your "nothing bad will happen because I was legal at the time of buy" is mental laziness, and FOR YOU, for your own safety, that alone makes you far more dangerous to yourself.

NOBODY IS OUT TO GET YOU. How is it you can apply rightful skepticism on religion, but when it comes to guns you scream like a fucking brat "BLASPHEMER" when nobody is out to oppress you for pointing out your lack of pragmatism. I cant oppress religion either, but when when it gets out of hand, it should be challenged to a manageable level.

We have a gun injury death epidemic. You like right wing Muslims and right wing Christians blindly defend a topic when nobody is arguing an all out ban, or should for that matter. 

GROW THE FUCK UP. Safety isn't a call for a ban. Regulations are not a ban. Your attitude sucks.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Step AWAY from the keyboard!

[KUSA]

Idiots like you.

Alrighty then. Since you can't control yourself and insist on insults and names, I'm going to refrain from responding to you for a while. I might even put you on ignore. You need to get a grip.

[Little lunch]

Brian, I don't understand why you want to ban all firearms.

[Brian37]

Brian, I don't understand why you want to ban all firearms.

Nowhere in this thread not even in my entire history on social media have I ever called for a ban on all firearms. 

I defy ANYONE to quote me where I ever said we should. 

I defy anyone to show me how hitting someone with a shotgun, or a 8 clip 9mm or a 6 shooter revolver would be less effective than a spray riffle? 

Show me the NEED and not the desire. A cop needs to carry even a handgun, a citizen at best, might need a handgun for home protection, but between a cop and a citizen, I am going to trust the COP to protect me before a layperson. I am going to trust a combat trained soldier first, before desiring the protection from a civilian who thinks target shooting is the same as stress shooting. 

"I can" yea, I can jump off the Golden Gate Bridge too, and legally people can walk across it, and there is not much stopping people from jumping. But that does not make the bridge safer to prevent jumpers.

"I want" and "I can" and "I am entitled" are not pragmatic arguments. I don't care what the subject is, I have the same attitude about ANY SUBJECT. SHOW ME, dont cry about rights. 

If you cannot demonstrate the pragmatic NEED then all you are arguing is a personal desire. Just like religion is not illegal and nobody is calling for a ban, but only theocrats want no rules where only they get what they want.

[KUSA]

I called for a ban on all firearms. 

[Brian37]

Idiots like you.

Alrighty then. Since you can't control yourself and insist on insults and names, I'm going to refrain from responding to you for a while. I might even put you on ignore. You need to get a grip.

Posting a picture of an assault riffle does not demonstrate a need for one, much less the ability to know what you are doing with one. The only reason you posted that picture was for a self absorbed spite because I picked on your holy object, much like a Christian gets pissed when you tell them a cross is a torture device, or like when a Muslim gets offended when you tell them the age of Mo's concubines.

If the worst you get are "insults" to your worship of firearms, and you get to go home at night, you are having a good day. In other parts of the world, if you pick on a book, which is also an object, people will murder you to protect that object. I doubt seriously you really want to murder me because I say you don't need big clips or spray riffles. I simply think you are stuck in the same lack of pragmatism religious people get stuck in, confusing rights as equaling "only when I get what I want".

---

I called for a ban on all firearms. 

Editing my post after the fact does not count anymore than putting a sticker on a dollar bill makes the sticker the new official bill. 

I have not and will not call for a ban on all firearms. PLEASE FUCKING KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Alrighty then. Since you can't control yourself and insist on insults and names, I'm going to refrain from responding to you for a while. I might even put you on ignore. You need to get a grip.

Posting a picture of an assault riffle does not demonstrate a need for one, much less the ability to know what you are doing with one. The only reason you posted that picture was for a self absorbed spite because I picked on your holy object, much like a Christian gets pissed when you tell them a cross is a torture device, or like when a Muslim gets offended when you tell them the age of Mo's concubines.

If the worst you get are "insults" to your worship of firearms, and you get to go home at night, you are having a good day. In other parts of the world, if you pick on a book, which is also an object, people will murder you to protect that object. I doubt seriously you really want to murder me because I say you don't need big clips or spray riffles. I simply think you are stuck in the same lack of pragmatism religious people get stuck in, confusing rights as equaling "only when I get what I want".

---

Editing my post after the fact does not count anymore than putting a sticker on a dollar bill makes the sticker the new official bill. 

I have not and will not call for a ban on all firearms. PLEASE FUCKING KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.

Give 'em a break, huh? It's all they got.