Hypothetical For Gun Rights Advocates

[brewer]

The thing about this hypothetically is that it doesn't take a high rate of noncompliance to cause major major problems. Even 99.9% of people complied peacefully and .1% of people locked themselves in a cabin and said "from my cold dead hands" you are going to have a way bigger problem then what you are trying to fix.

It's a pointless hypothetical though, because it's not the world we live in, and how many atheist forums people even own assault rifles?

I do.

[henryp]

Never owned a gun.  There's safety in money.

But it's the thief with a gun who robs you of your money, unless your bank roll shoots back.

If you have money, you can afford to live in a place with low crime rates.  Thieves like robbing other poor people for whatever reason.  Probably saves on gas money, or something.

[Anomalocaris]

The thing about this hypothetically is that it doesn't take a high rate of noncompliance to cause major major problems. Even 99.9% of people complied peacefully and .1% of people locked themselves in a cabin and said "from my cold dead hands" you are going to have a way bigger problem then what you are trying to fix.

It's a pointless hypothetical though, because it's not the world we live in, and how many atheist forums people even own assault rifles?

If I tell you, I have to use it on you.

[A Theist]

But it's the thief with a gun who robs you of your money, unless your bank roll shoots back.

If you have money, you can afford to live in a place with low crime rates.  Thieves like robbing other poor people for whatever reason.  Probably saves on gas money, or something.

...or more likely to steal their weed.

[LostLocke]

Why's everyone focused on the guns?
I want a remote fully armed hover drone following me at all times, while I'm strapped with a small nuclear device coupled with a redundant deadman's switch.
After all, the 2A doesn't mention guns, it mentions arms, and both those things are definitely arms.

[Jackalope]

Why's everyone focused on the guns?
I want a remote fully armed hover drone following me at all times, while I'm strapped with a small nuclear device coupled with a redundant deadman's switch.
After all, the 2A doesn't mention guns, it mentions arms, and both those things are definitely arms.

Probably because things like artillery, tanks, and nuclear weapons are already heavily restricted?

Just spitballin'.

[Jackalope]

It's a pointless hypothetical though, because it's not the world we live in, and how many atheist forums people even own assault rifles?

I did until about a year and a half ago.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and then there were three.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but thusfar, of self identified af peoples who actually own/owned an assault rifle...it's 3 for 3 on those who agree that there should be gun control reform?

[Jackalope]

-and then there were three.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but thusfar, of self identified af peoples who actually own/owned an assault rifle...it's 3 for 3 on those who agree that there should be gun control reform?

I also owned a bunch of handguns and had a concealed carry permit for years. I personally think something ought to be done in that regard as well. As you are aware, that's a much more pressing problem, though not as visible.

[Lek]

I would reluctantly hand over my "assault" weapons because I'm a law-abiding citizen.  The thing is that most murders and killings are done with hand guns, not "assault" weapons, so if we want to stop killing with guns we should ban hand guns.  In keeping with the intent of second amendment, I wouldn't have much of a chance defending myself from an overreaching government, armed with everything imaginable with a pistol.  It wouldn't work well against defending myself against criminals armed with automatic weapons as well.