Again....But it's never the guns!

[Napoléon]

I'm an average citizen (non-LEO, non-military) & have already demonstrated a need for a firearm around my house.

Were you the one who needed to put up a fence? Or was it something different? Do run it by me again, I lost track when everyone started posting pictures of their 'awesome guns'.

To add to that anecdote I also personally know (as in went to high school with them) someone who shot & killed an armed intruder during a home invasion.

So what? How is does this have any bearing whatsoever on the right to bear arms?

Y'see, I find this attitude to be absolutely mind blowing, and forgive me for being stereo-typical, but it's just exactly what I'd expect from Americans. For me, the last thing I'd be thinking of doing if someone came into my house would be to decide to have a fucking shoot out with them.

So exactly who makes that decision?

I'll presume you mean limiting who has access to guns.

Please keep in mind two things.

1.) In the USA by default all people are considered equal in respect to what they can & can't own. Changing this would require a Constitutional Amendment & you aren't going to be able to get 2/3rds of the population behind that.

All people except the mentally ill and those with criminal convictions? So nah, not everyone is really considered equal. People are obviously not equal, by what your own laws suggest.

You guys talk about the constitution as though it's some kind of holy text, and talk about the right to bear arms as though it's a human right. As far as I'm concerned both of these attitudes are just silly.

What do you actually expect from the constitution?? That it is good and relevant through all of time, just like the bible? C'mon. If the words written in your constitution become outdated then they should be changed, and I do not think that anyone has a right to bear arms. To me it's an outdated notion.

As for the population, I'm guessing they get to decide on every law their government comes up with huh? Oh wait, no, no it doesn't actually work like that does it?

2.) People who actually want to use said firearms to commit criminal acts by definition don't care about your laws to start with.

Yeah, knew this one was bound to come up, as though it's actually any argument at all for taking no action whatsoever to try and stop murderers from having access to weaponry that causes mass amounts of damage.

It's like saying someone who plans on train hopping without a ticket will still do so. Well, yeah, state the fucking obvious or what. The fact that a ticket operator comes around every once in a while and checks for them doesn't make a difference to them, OH WAIT. Yeah, it does. Because every so often they get caught. Why do they get caught? Because someone is at least trying to keep an eye on who's got a ticket on the damn train. If the people who run trains simply said "fuck it, train hoppers gonna hop", then what the fuck would the point be in buying train tickets?

So the people regulating guns simply say "fuck it, murderers still gonna use guns no matter what we do", and don't bother doing anything? Is that what you're suggesting?

Sorry if I went off on one there, but I still think it's a fair analogy and a fair point.


So to answer your question, the government should make the decision.