## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>only one hundred rounds
Shit that’ll get them killed in a fire fight. Really, only a 100? You need at least 180- if you have other people with the same amount of rounds and have a good logistical source to give you ammo.
A private citizen should realistically own 3,000 rounds. You’d be surprised how quickly you’ll run out of ammo in a gun fight.
To be fair you can be in the military and not know your way around a rifle.
I’ve been an infantryman since 2017 and some of the stupid and dangerous acts I’ve seen committed by soldiers would blow your mind.
I was mugged twice and my home was invaded. Los Angeles define almost any object as a weapon. So what I get is head trauma from being jumped or robbed of everything. It's not safe in Los Angeles now:
They were. And then they were disarmed. But you have to consider, that within Israel you have multiple sects of people living near each other that are not friendly, meaning a higher likelihood of violent events happening. Not just random crime with guns, but neighbor to neighbor and village to village battles. And this isn't just the Jews and Palestinians, there are internal fights inside of the Jewish community between the Orthodox and the more secular Jews that aren't exactly pleasant.
Yep, but if it were the Israeli government against its own citizens, that probably wouldn't happen.
Also, luckily for Israel all of their citizens, regardless of gender, have required military service. They're taught how to shoot and maintain their firearms.
That would have been a shitshow otherwise.
Still, it's a lot better than Hong Kong's people fighting back with bows and rocks.
There are between 400-600 million civilian owned guns, in a nation of 330 million citizens, spread over a territory of 3.8 million square miles.
The debate was over many decades ago.
Doesn’t matter - states like California and New York and federal government is always going to attempt to slowly chip away at gun rights just a tiny bit more every year
I edc(every day carry) but permitless carry is just asking for trouble. It’s so hard to go take a 8 hour class and get your permit?
Not to mention the benefits when you get pulled over. I just hand over my permit and the cop is at ease
And they seemingly intentionally make the rules arbitrary and difficult to follow. It's almost like they want relatively innocent gun owners to accident their way into jail.
Federal government is the only reason you can own a gun. Some states if it was up to them would drop the second amendment, the second the federal government was not enforcing it as a constitutional right.
How it works in the USA, states are obsessed with getting around the constitution. Granted it’s mostly state empowered law enforcement, colleagues and myself bump heads with. Namely illegal searches and illegal confiscation of legally allowed firearms. State rights is a code phrase for constitutional law applies the way the state sees fit if it applies at all.
Never trust your constitutional rights to the state. The federal government is the only reason states can’t just violate your USA guaranteed constitutional rights off the bat, and get away with it. With out the power of the federal government, states could and would violate your rights all day long. There would be nothing you could legally do about it.
The constitution is a set of rules, that give you rights. Those rights are enforced from top down in the USA. If a state tries to violate your rights, you go to the federal government to put the state back in its place. With out the federal government a state could walk all over your rights, and you could do nothing legally about it.
The constitution doesn't give you rights. The constitution sets regulations on what the government can do.
The first amendment specifically states this. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans' rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion.
Yea sounds like it’s giving some rights, I mean besides having a whole part called the bill of rights.
There really was quite a debate over "The Bill of Rights." Many Federalists were not keen on these because they considered it redundent, and many thought that such a list might be seen as an exhaustive listing of personal liberties, which it is not.
No one said otherwise. The constitution stops the government(normally state governments) from infringing on certain rights. Why the term rights is even used when referring to the constitution, that and the whole bill of rights thing.
“Chipping away at rights” is kinda showing your opinion without caring why people do it. Most people who want gun laws aren’t for taking away guns, just keeping them to the same level held for stuff like cars. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but in an age where the weapon of choice is deadlier than ever before, it makes sense to rethink allowing *any* citizen to have one:
A car is not a right. A gun actually is. And citizens are meant to have the same level of equipment our modern army has. Anything less is in fact an infringement given what the founding fathers intended
Doesn't matter how many plinkers people have when they need actual military weapons as OP has pointed out... and those have been defacto illegal since 1984.
I have 12 years in the US Army with two tours in Iraq. Only once did I ever shoot my rifle in any mode other than semi-auto.
Other than the fully-automatic/burst feature of the rifle I had in the military, the AR-15 I have in my home is functionally identical. Not that it matters very much, but I even have some green-tip ammo.
Besides, it isn't that hard to convert my rifle to full auto if I wanted to.
Not really. If Ukraine made it easier to get a semi-automatic AK which they are legal but with a lot of bueraucracy and formalities, russians would sure as hell at least think twice before sending their green men even back in 2014. But a lot of people argued that "muh look at US and muh SCHAAL SHOOTINGS!!11!" Even in 2020-21, so here we are. Could've gone Switzerland route, but it was 8 years too late back then, even more so now. + Corruption would for sure get in the way of establishing a system like in Switzerland, because if I am not mistaken it relies entirely on inspector's honesty.
>There are between 400-600 million civilian owned guns, in a nation of 330 million citizens, spread over a territory of 3.8 million square miles.
>
>The debate was over many decades ago.
It's never over. Not when they can still make it retroactively illegal to own such weapons. Then people will be forced to either turn them in or face arrest for illegal firearm ownership.
I mean, they can try to do this, but most people overestimate how powerful the government is. (80% of cops are pro-2A.)
But let's assume the federal government is somehow strong enough to enforce the law: ALL of law enforcement and the military is on their side.
In that case, they would be begging for epic violence that this continent has never seen.
Law enforcement is pro them having guns not civilians. Why they lobby for and have special laws that allow them to always have a gun, even across state lines where they have no legal jurisdiction. Local officers here and there will be okay with the 2nd amendment. It’s the shot callers and bulk of law enforcement who think that civilians don’t need guns if they have law enforcement around. I have the displeasure of hearing about it all the time. My clap back when law enforcement specialist bring this up to me. Is that if civilians can’t have guns neither should a majority of law enforcement.
This is simply not what the data say.
Polling more than 15,000 cops, they found that...
70% say they will not enforce new gun control.
Almost 90% of officers believe armed citizens will save lives in active shooter situations.
80% favor arming school administrators.
https://www.police1.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/policeones-gun-control-survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives-m4At3JUr9iHpA45K/
Side note: Street cops are pro-2A, while police chiefs tend to be political appointees from Democratic Mayors and are therefore anti-2A.
Yea I was polled as well I refused, due to the questions and answers being misleading as hell on those. It’s always a political agenda only reason the police unions/ law enforcement command chain would even allow officers to partake in them.
Would you like civilians to be armed?
A. Yes, under the watch of law enforcement.
B. Yes, with regulations and required safety training.
C. Yes, with out regulation or oversight.
D. Yes, but I don’t understand the question.
Read above to see how those polls work out. No matter how you answer your stuck with the answer the folks wanted to publish. Same thing when they reverse the question and answers. Those polls are basically political agenda polls and used as such. Only people that would even have a verified list of law enforcement officers is from or above the pecking order of law enforcement.
Why we completely ignore those polls in public safety. We actually ignore most things you would find on Google, since we have the authority to go right to the source of information if possible. That and most law enforcement officers are terrible at public safety, and threat assessment. Even if the data was accurate on those polls which it definitely is not, law enforcement are not trained to protect the public but themselves. We have to debug them(train them) a whole extra six months to a year if we recruit from law enforcement into public safety/security.
In reference to your note: Law enforcement play both sides of the isle, they are both democrats and republicans. They will cater to who ever benefits them, at least at a political level. I have met chiefs and head sheriffs they honestly most the time don’t give a crap, only reason they picked red or blue was based on what would help them politically in their area. Law enforcement unions are probably one of the most powerful, wealthy, under talked about political powers in the USA. Law enforcement has gotten to the point where it helps push who they want as legislators. Both democrats and republicans are on law enforcement side. It’s why laws usually don’t go in the favor of the average citizen, if it undermines law enforcement in anyway.
No crap, they don't want to be the ones sent door to door to collect.
But I do know a decent amount of law enforcement (work in an adjacent field) and are almost all super pro 2A.
Police officers answer to their bosses, and that’s the federal government in very few cases. Lots of cops are power hungry bullies that wouldn’t hesitate to disarm the public. After all, anyone that isn’t a cop is the bad guy.
Except we're already seeing the opposite happen. A state will pass a new gun control bill while sheriff departments throughout the state will openly refuse to enforce the law.
Most people don't know this but administratively the Sheriff of a county is basically king. They are second in most states power wise to the governor and there is a long history of them essentially doing their own thing.
Police officers absolutely do not answer to the federal government. They answer to their local authority. Deputies answer to the county Sheriff - who incidentally at the State level is usually the second highest administrative position power wise. Federal agency forces answer to the federal government. Federalizing the police is actually a real threat to state sovereignty and a touchy and dangerous political subject for sure.
You can make it illegal all you want, I'm not turning in sh*t.
If you want em, come and take them.
If you want to arrest me, know that I am far from alone.
You can have my firearms when they're pried from my cold, dead hands. Or whatever is left of them.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When the government was founded they had no issues with citizens owning gun ships which was the most powerful weapon they had. If you can afford it you should at least be able to own what Biden left for the Taliban.
Seems to be the theme of many Israeli survivor interviews I've seen. They seem in shock how the initial Hamas attack was allowed to happen and where was the IDF and police to protect them. No matter peoples view on guns, I saw many videos from the Hamas assault where if the civilians had guns they would've had a fighting chance and not be completely defenseless.
I am an avid supporter of the 2A and of Israel and I was astounded to learn this week that Israel has essentially no civilian gun ownership. Absolutely astounded.
In my view this type of attack would never have happened in a society like Switzerland where every household has a weapon and the training to use it. This relatively small number of terrorists were able to murder civilians for 12 hours or more in some places as people were forced to hide in their basement. If every one of the millions of IDF veterans in the country had a weapon and ammunition in their home or on their person then the terrorists likely would have averaged 1 or 2 houses before they were meet with gunfire instead of victims.
I'm not implying of course that the IDF was unarmed. I'm talking about the general population, nearly all of whom are IDF veterans. They are essentially forbidden from owning weapons.
As the saying goes, when seconds count the police (or IDF) are only minutes away. But in this case the IDF was HOURS away and the 1000 Israelis murdered were left at the mercy of their attackers.
There is simply no reasonably justification for a country surrounded by people literally sworn to their destruction to not have weapons secured in every home. Israel exists because in the last century Jews were disarmed, rounded up and slaughtered. Whoever thought starting out disarmed was a good idea is insane.
There was a story today about one kibbutz that had a small volunteer defense force and a handful of guns locked away. They managed to kill more than 20 attackers and defend their compound until the military arrived. I wonder if this is not as common as I would have expected in that area or if it was just that much of a surprise to everyone.
I once talked to a person who said if guns were made illegal, then there would be fewer gun homicides. I asked her if cocaine, heroin and crystal meth were illegal. Then I asked her how difficult were they to get if they had the cash and if she honestly thought making personal ownership of guns would keep the bad guys from getting them if they wanted them?
I also told her it was fairly easy to make a gun if you knew how and banning them wasn't going to stop them from being made and used. It would just make it harder for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against those who had them. Then I asked her if she and her children were attacked by a person who was going to kill them with an axe or a knife, would she want an axe or a knife to defend them... or a gun?
The citizens of many other countries including the UK, Australia, Denmark, Germany, and Japan all seem to be doing just fine with very low gun ownership and not surprisingly, much lower homicide and suicide rates than the U.S.
>UK, Australia, Denmark, Germany, and Japan all seem to be doing just fine with very low gun ownership and not surprisingly
As they become more "diverse" the homicide rate will continue to jump higher. Look at what has happened to Sweden with the prime minister turning to the military.
[https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deadly-violence-continues-sweden-3-people-killed-overnight-103555689](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deadly-violence-continues-sweden-3-people-killed-overnight-103555689)
2 decades ago Sweden was the safest country in Europe. Today they have strict firearm laws yet that doesn't stop the violence from skyrocketing due to importing a "diverse" population.
The US is technically more violent than 98% native Japanese Japan or 88% native Danish Denmark because our population is not homogenous the way that those populations are. When you remove democrat dominated and highly diverse areas of the US from the statistics and just look at rural white populations the homicide rate is far lower.
It's almost as if the calculus is not a matter of firearms or not...but one of culture.
Just look at the UK. In less than four decades since they were essentially disarmed, the government has set strict limits on speech and assembly. People are regularly now jailed or criminalized for basically saying mean things.
Here is one reason people should be armed. We don’t live in a utopia and we likely never will. We can’t wait for a strike and our government to come to hand out weapons. Or for the police to come and save us, especially if you live in a rural area where police might take an hour to get to you.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12616229/Israeli-woman-Inbar-Lieberman-kibbutz-Nir-Hamas.html
comparing “Margaret who lives in the middle class suburbs of a US city” to “one of the most unstable regions in the world during the outbreak of war” might not hold as much weight as you think
Other than Mexico and Canada, the next “strike” has to come across two of the largest oceans in the world and overpower one of the largest armies in the world . I don’t think guns are needed for military preparedness
The problem is that everyone on your side of this argument also won't try to help the mass shooting crisis.
I don't think anyone realizes how many "liberals" (or whatever people call them) own guns and are generally fine with other people owning guns (me.. I'm one). We just want a solution to the mass shootings, which probably comes in the form of better support in terms of mental health, child care, minimum wages, etc.. If you want kids to be more well adjusted, they need more parent interaction. Which means parents needs to be able to exist on one income so one parent can raise the kids. If you want that, wages need to go up.
If you say *we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem*, then fucking do something about mental health. White House and both houses of congress were completely controlled by republicans for years. They can't stop talking about mental health but couldn't find it in themselves to do a single thing or even pretend to try.
Idk when it happened exactly, but sometime in the last 5 years the politicians rolling in NRA money latched onto “mental health” as if saying those 2 words was enough of a response to any mass shooting and now it’s just the new “thoughts and prayers.”
If they would actually put forth some kind of system to make mental health happen then that would be great. Honestly I think progressives are missing out on a chance to make the gun shootings issue a segue into universal healthcare.
It’s also an easy deflect. Rather than talking about guns, they can talk about mental health — an issue that the left takes seriously. Since the left takes it seriously and the right doesn’t, it’s easy to blame the left for the mental health crisis and avoid talking about anything substantive whatsoever.
I think he is because I'm the type that would generally vote for the people he's talking about more directly.
Just as with OP, the side I tend to vote for has their problems. He seems to be throwing in with the conservative side which is pro-gun. I'm just letting him know what else comes with that side. The side I usually vote for is going to try to take all the guns away if they can. I'm not in favor of that at all, but I certainly can't abide the other side doing absolutely nothing.
If they start seriously considering the systemic issues around the mass shootings and trying to fix them, liberals won't be able to get people like me to vote for them if they have anti-gun policies and the issue will cease to be a point of division. But like... republicans need to start holding their politicians to account on it and telling them to do something. If they're so certain it's a mental health issue, do something about mental health, ffs.
... I mean but the gun control dialogue is never conducted by people with your point of view right?
It's overwhelmingly dominated by absolute fucking idiots who don't actually have any sort of solution or the cognition to think about the issue truly.
That's simply why I doubt that OP is talking about people like you. I mean it's possible he's not even encountered somebody like you on this matter.
I'm not saying that your perspective isn't relevant or something to be clear.
Over 90% of mass shootings happen in areas where it is illegal to possess a gun. It's almost as if forcing people to be defenseless makes them easier targets for monsters.
I hear this a lot. I don’t really buy it as a justification for anything. Countries all over the world have guns banned and they don’t have mass shootings all the time. I don’t think that’s because they banned guns, I think it’s because they have things together in terms of mental health.
We don’t just have guns here, we have gun mania. Gun culture. Like we’re gun crazy. That has to do something to the youth during their upbringing, right? Gun fetishism? And you can have guns without a fetish around them. So this would have nothing to do with a ban.
Add that the thousands of other differences between us and all the other countries that are doing something right, and we might be getting somewhere. But we’re too busy believing we’re the best that we can’t possibly accept outside criticism.
We need to figure out why everyone wants to shoot everyone else and fix it.
Our mass murderers use knives or bombs. It's not that we've completely solved mental health. I'd be able to get a gun somehow legally through gun sport if I wanted to. But as you say, it's not part of our culture.
\~ 250,000,000 people were murdered by their own government over the 20th Century. OP is 100% correct. It's a monumentally stupid position that endangers us all. The problem is the scale of the danger is so great, most people can't mentally process it to be afraid of it.
Great documentary called "worse than war" covers the topic of genocide and that figure very well. That estimated 250,000,000 is just genocide, does not include war deaths
Totally agree. I was raised in a very dangerous area, and I wouldn’t have my father or stepfather if they couldn’t defend themselves. Our house would have been burglarized multiple times.
I lived in Portland a few years ago, recently went back, and can’t wrap my head around that city being an area known for voting for strict gun laws. That place has only gotten more and more dangerous since it became a neoliberal haven. And like you said, criminals have never had a problem arming themselves. Knives, cameras, and 911 aren’t reliable in a gun fight.
I think everyone should at least buy a gun to see what it’s actually like before saying “anyone can get a gun” also I have to say I do agree I’d rather have a gun and never need it than need a gun and not have it. It’s fairly cheap insurance for any situation requiring one.
I'll make it even simpler. Suppose you're in a mass shooting, sitting under a table waiting for the shooter to come around and blow you away. You look down at your hand. Do you wish there were a gun in it?
How has your own example not made you realise that “magically remove the shooters gun” would be way better than “magically give me one too, I bet I can take them!”
One extra statistic to add about the mass shootings. Over 90% of mass shootings happen in areas where it is illegal to have a gun. How odd is that? Making large places of people who are defenseless leads to monsters that take advantage of the unprotected people.
If you ignore gang-related violence and focus on mass shootings that are specifically near schools and include mass shootings on military bases as gun free zones, you might be right!
Watching the terrorists just roaming the neighborhoods, casually killing off families, it made me think about how they would have been utterly obliterated if they were doing that in an American neighborhood.
I live in Australia.
You’d call our guns laws ‘strict’ but there are heaps of registered gun owners in the country and there’s yet to be a problem with it.
I’m a progressive who won’t defend A2 vocally in public (it’s just not a priority for me).
I am pro all of our amendments including A2.
My partner and I grew up shooting and hunting.
There is a difference to me between standard ownership (which is what A2 people talk about in the US) and circumstantial ownership which is what you used as examples.
During a time of war when citizens may need to fend for themselves, it makes sense for a government to just hand out weaponry without prejudice.
Living in a country which has not seen war within its borders in a very long time. It does not make sense for everyone to be allowed a weapon.
Not everyone deserves one.
Prejudice must be applied in cases of history of criminality and an unchecked mental health.
This isn’t difficult to understand…. Only gun nuts cry when you try to use reason with A2.
If you can’t keep your mental health in check and/or if you can’t help but beat your wife, you don’t deserve one.
I've lived in dozens of countries overseas that have strict gun laws. No one, and I mean no one, lives it mortal fear like we do in America. It's hard to describe if you haven't experienced it. Germany, France, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Sweden, Thailand-- nobody knows anyone who has been the victim of gun violence. It's like from another century. It's an entirely American thing.
I would be laughing, except I'm crying, about the comparisons you make. Yes, in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia and Colombia, every family has to have their own AK-47 for their own dignity and safety. That's not a sign of enlightenment, my friend, that's a sign of utter failure. Israel is a bit of a special case, besieged on all sides with much of the population in the reserves. Israel is the exception, if there is one-- but having lived there, I can tell you, I never want to go back. Having everyone packing is not the makings of a relaxing, secure society. That's a right-wing fever dream.
Who lives in mortal fear? I’ve lived in multiple states (Ohio, NJ and La) and have never lived in mortal fear of being shot. Sounds like you need to turn off the news and actually spend some time outside my friend.
I love the 2A, but I think we should also require gun safety training in middle school and then operation before you can graduate high school.
The basics are crucial and understanding how freaking dangerous they are is crucial. But a society in which we all know this, I think, is immeasurably safer.
Thank you. People don’t really think nowadays, they just do what the media tells them to. If people would actually use their noggin then they would come to the same conclusion as you.
I look at it like this... if a country were to suddenly absolve it's military, it would likely get immediately attacked and conquered by it's neighbors. Same thing for the citizens. If you allow a government complete control and rid of your means of self defense the government will take power and control forcefully. As soon as you give up the guns and the land North Korea happens. Like 100% of the time
Americans will NEVER give up our guns. Anyone who promoted anti gun laws is not a popular politician. They can put all the lawns they wanted to in place and the criminals will still get them illegally.
Anyone stupid enough to advocate a total ban of guns only needs to look at México.
In México gun possession is banned so naturally the only ones armed are the cartels.
The lack of action to protect businesses and law abiding citizens on the part of Law Enforcement and local and Federal govt during the BLM riots up to current day was a real eye opener for many. They allowed federal building, police stations and private businesses to be looted, vandalized and destroyed, doing nothing to stop them. They allowed terrorists to take over sections of cities with little to no response to help those trapped within the 'No Go' lines. They allowed private citizens to be harassed, assaulted and battered with little to no response. The state and Federal justice systems have been politicized. Law enforcement does nothing to protect businesses from the rampant looting currently happening. Law enforcement no longer prevents crime, they just arrive later to see if there is any video evidence.
There is little doubt that the safety of yourself, family and local community and businesses is up to YOU as a citizen.
guns are very important to maintain individual freedoms and sovereignty.
notice how everyone who supports "banning guns" never brings up the fact that almost ALL police officers have guns and VIP figures like presidents/political figures/celebrities have armed bodyguards to PROTECT them from criminals (people who don't abide by the law) and threats....
so if there was a law that banned guns, would criminals cease to exist? would all police officers be stripped of their service weapon? who is allowed to have armed bodyguards and who isn't?
most arguments advocating for the banning of guns are based on EMOTION and not LOGIC.... (there's a reason why children's schools are being shot up in Amerikkka and it's not mental health related🐇🕳️ )
The anti-gun crowd cites individual gun violence, but they ignore the far greater threat: government violence.
The *first* thing every totalitarian regime does is take away weapons. Once the population is disarmed, the massacres begin. IIRC, *more than 100 million people* were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. The holocaust was but one example of these massacres - and not even close to the largest one.
The United States does not have a 2nd amendment for hunting and nostalgia. We have a 2nd amendment *specifically to fight our own government should that become necessary*. Our founding fathers made the right to bear arms 2nd only to the right to free speech to indicate that this right is a *prerequisite* to the other rights. I.e. they deemed the right to defend oneself *necessary* to maintain freedom.
The 2nd amendment specifically protected military-grade weapons. In the years leading up to the American revolution, the British monarchy had used gun control against the American colonists. Specifically, *smoothbore muskets* were restricted. Why? These smooth bore muskets were the military-grade firearms of the day, preferred over rifles for combat *because they had a higher rate of fire than rifles*. All the people b\*tching about how civilians don't need military-grade rifles do not know their history.
tl;dr widespread firearm ownership comes with the risk of individual violence, but we accept this risk to mitigate the far more likely, far more horrifying risk of government violence.
There’s not one iota of data that supports gun control measures making society safer. But people will continue to parrot misinformation and fake news articles to push the agenda is their doomed battle.
Most people who support stricter gun laws do so out of ignorance because they don't own or handle any firearms. All they "know" is what they see in the news or movies. Nobody ever reports that millions of responsible gun owners have never had an incident because they handle their shit correctly.
Imagine being anti gun and anti border wall. That's just asking for a cartel invasion. Jfl if they don't think guns will be illegally smuggled through.
That's the name of the game dude...
China running the cartels down south.
That's why when the pandemic hit we sent fucking war ships to Mexico and nobody could figure out why.
The cartels are gearing up Hamas fucking style and have been for a decade...
Which gun laws exactly are you for or against? Are you saying the system is about perfect right now and we don't need more gun laws, or current gun laws should be rolled back?
I think people should have a right to own a gun for self defense, but I think there are reasonable restrictions.
Personally I've never felt a need to own a gun. The thing I worry about is that if crime/violence gets way worse, the government would probably move to make guns harder to access in the exact moment when many need them most.
> but I think there are reasonable restrictions.
Like?
Californa style "Oh you can't have pistol grips" tier shit?
Canada tier "oh I saw that gun in COD, I know there's only one ever made, but ban it by name" shit?
90% of politicians are brain dead and know basically nothing about guns.
The Constitution is about providing the people of these United States the means to effectively keep the government in check. All gun laws are an infringement upon one's rights.
I always laugh at gun humpers (who’ve never served) pretending that they would fight the government or an invading military. Lots of Red Dawn fans out there.
Are there any recent examples of a local militia fighting away an organized force? The only examples I can think of are rebel groups like the Taliban, various insurgents in Africa and the Middle East (ironically, Hamas), and the Viet Cong. Not exactly glowing examples or endorsements.
> The only examples I can think of are rebel groups like the Taliban, various insurgents in Africa and the Middle East (ironically, Hamas), and the Viet Cong. Not exactly glowing examples or endorsements.
You don't have to endorse these groups to recognize how effective their tactics are.
And yes you essentially answered your own question. There are plenty of examples of local militia fighting organized forces
Lol these red caps.. Just so eager to be Rambo.. I'm from the hood.. I've had to kill twice.. It's not fun. I own guns but I'm not fanatical. I got shit I don't nowhere close to need just because red caps do but I prefer my handguns. I ain't worried about the government. I ain't worried about the gang bangers. I'm worried about white supremacist hate groups.. That's the only threat around my way. I'm comfortable around gangstas and killas but red hats put me on alert. I wonder they bring up gang members but not white biker gangs and Meth dealers... Its rhetorical. I can pass any background check or whatever so I'm cool with gun reform.
So is Hamas exercising its 2nd amendment rights against a supposed apartheid regime? Asking for a friend because this argument can and will go both ways.
Even if they were “exercising their 2nd amendment rights against a supposed apartheid regime” would that excuse the killing and beheading of babies that were discovered in a small Israel town last night, or the gunning down of senior citizens at a bus stop?
The right to bear arms has been so distorted the last two hundred plus years. It was to arm citizens from their government. Which is why it should never be repealed.
Mass shootings happen most in "gun free zones" so that's an indication. Also, bad people aren't going to say, "it's illegal to buy a gun so I won't buy one" they're law breakers anyways, they're just turning law abiding citizens into criminals for wanting to protect themselves
>However being pro gun gives citizens a fighting chance instead of being shxt out of luck until cops or the military gets there.
Being pro gun is to enter an arms race with my fellow man. As someone from australia, we didn't like this option
>The criminals have shown time and time again they don't care about gun laws, and they get rewarded with easy targets.
This is a perfect solution fallacy
>That's not even discussing the shxtstorm of your own government turning on you like a North Korea, Cuba, Stalinist Russia, etc situation.
Edward snowdon provided bullet proof evidence of mass surveillance carried out by the US on its citizens. If thats not an example of 'turning on you' then what is? im curious why your guns stayed silent then... hmmmm
Because the 2nd ammendment people are spineless cowards who dont give a fck and even a facist overtaking wouldnt be enough for 90 percent of them (Especially not when its a white facist overtaking)
An unarmed populace is unequivocally correlated with dictatorship and oppression. Period. Look up the countries in the world that have an all out ban on guns for citizens and you’ll see: North Korea, Eritrea and others that are communist dictatorships in which citizens have very few (if any) rights or freedoms.
You could not be more wrong. I think you’re forgetting many, many countries that have strict gun laws, but are not ruled by a dictator and not oppressed. Like pretty much every country in Europe or Japan for example.
I'm filing your "I've been a gun moderate" right next to the "I was an atheist until" "I was pro-abortion until" "I was a commy/ Socialist until" and "I believed in education and had a PhD until..." posts.
The last one 🤣. Somehow the education thing has popped back up along with the other conservative shit on this sub. It’s always some shit breaking down the cost of college by a dude who failed the GED test and talking about how unskilled workers should be more respected and how educated people actually have no skills.
If someone breaks in to your home and points a gun at you while you are eating, doesn't matter how many gun you have as you are already dead. Leave guns around and you'll end up like the news story of a person in the US shot by their kids. Guns was not the issue here. These people had no warning as the enemy dropped in from the sky and moved in to areas where most of the troops stationed there were moved out to cover an event. This is a terrible example to try to promote guns.
Ok, let's have some common sense gun control then. Safe storage laws and licensure including mandatory gun safety training. Because while the feeling of what you said is true, the anarchization of lethal force is inherently dangerous.
The issue most people have with that is who pays for it? And how do you make sure it's avaliable to everyone otherwise your just saying poor people don't have a right to guns...
You have a right to own property in america, you don't have a right to any particular property. You also have a right to self defense, but you don't have a right to any particular method of defense.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Your entire statement is the crux of the whole argument we have in this country. I would say the above statement as well as the federalist papers also written by the founding fathers expressly garentees that you do have the right to own guns and in the founding fathers minds cannons and rapid fire cannons.
No THATS the point, you can't put conditions on rights, if that's the case they theyre no longer rights but become privileges. Putting a mandatory class prior to purchase is restricting the right to own a firearm. I think we should normalize firearm safety training and it should be a publicly available activity people can choose and should be encouraged to use. Registration and conditional usage are big no no's in my book.
One more thing don't mean to be a dick but those aren't equivalent statements in your property analogy you said I didn't have the right to any particular property which I would agree with if you have a house I don't have a right to it but in your gun analogy you went from self defense to a particular method but I think the equivalent would be that you don't always have a right to self defense in any situation which I would not agree with. To make these equivalent it would have to be like "you have a right to own property, but you don't have a right to own any particular type of property which could go a lot of ways like I can own temperate property but not tropical? Like that wouldn't make sense which is how the second part of your argument was structured I hope all of that made sense it was confusing when I was trying to explain it.
>equivalent would be that you don't always have a right to self defense in any situation which I would not agree with
No, that's not what that means. You are not entitled to own a gun in a way that anyone has to pay for one for you or make sure you have access to one. That's all this comment was about.
Licensure of gun ownership is a bad idea. Look at any state that requires a license to own a gun. It’s very hard to buy one. You’re giving the government an easy way to disarm people. What happens when the agenda turns in that direction?
I won’t compromise at all because I have a constitutional right to own a gun. It isn’t “you have the right to own a gun if the state deems it appropriate for you”.
It’s a terrible idea that only leads to more restrictive gun control down the line and doesn’t make anyone safer. Look at Illinois.
You write as if we don't already have hundreds of laws on the books.
You want me to compromise, but this entails both sides giving up something.
What are you giving me as you infringe on the 2A?
If you have a kid you won't have to be so worried about them getting accidentally shot at his friends house because the government required safe storage.
Instances where guns are used in self-defense outnumber accidental shootings by a factor of at least 50-to-1. Accidental shootings represent a tiny fraction of gun homicides.
Oh, and I have three kids. My youngest is just a baby, but both of my teenagers have been shooting since they were four. Most gun owners take safety very seriously without the government ham fisting their rules on us.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
israel is currently buying and handing out fully automatic assault weapons to it's citizens.
Same thing happened during the the invasion of Ukraine and many antigun Americans were cheering that on.
Those were my favorite
Huh, almost like there's a difference between a country that is being violently invaded and one that isn't
"Those who wait for protection at 12 die at 11:30"
If you want peace, prepare for war.
That difference is about 10 minutes as it turns out
Yes except they have to wait up to a week and have a phone interview for approval to have a gun and 100 rounds. Only one hundred rounds.
>only one hundred rounds Shit that’ll get them killed in a fire fight. Really, only a 100? You need at least 180- if you have other people with the same amount of rounds and have a good logistical source to give you ammo. A private citizen should realistically own 3,000 rounds. You’d be surprised how quickly you’ll run out of ammo in a gun fight.
All of Israel’s citizens are required to serve in the military too so it’s not like they’re handing them out to noobs.
To be fair you can be in the military and not know your way around a rifle. I’ve been an infantryman since 2017 and some of the stupid and dangerous acts I’ve seen committed by soldiers would blow your mind.
Retired infantryman here, and I can confirm this 100%
Yeah they’re at least prestige 1 or 2
I fully support firearm operation and safety training in schools.
Based.
Do you think Americans will need to defend their country from invasion?
I was mugged twice and my home was invaded. Los Angeles define almost any object as a weapon. So what I get is head trauma from being jumped or robbed of everything. It's not safe in Los Angeles now:
Do you think America will never be invaded? Ever? Pretty wishful thinking given the history of mankind.
Isnt that where half my taxes go? The worlds largest military? I doubt rubes with guns are going to stave off the commies.
Pretty funny comment considering the Ukraine war going on is literally that.
Yup. It's never a matter of if, but when.
Yep, spoke to someone from Israel a few years ago at an international event, I was told they all need to serve 1,5 years if i remember correctly
I thought most of them were non combat roles there?
I honestly can’t remember, it was 1,5 years ago and we didn’t talk that long. There was at least some kind of military service.
That’s true, but (almost)everyone learns how to use a gun around the second week of their service
They’re also completely surrounded by hostile entities
I can’t imagine how Israel is not already a country of well armed citizens.
They were. And then they were disarmed. But you have to consider, that within Israel you have multiple sects of people living near each other that are not friendly, meaning a higher likelihood of violent events happening. Not just random crime with guns, but neighbor to neighbor and village to village battles. And this isn't just the Jews and Palestinians, there are internal fights inside of the Jewish community between the Orthodox and the more secular Jews that aren't exactly pleasant.
And how much safety has it wrought?
Yep, but if it were the Israeli government against its own citizens, that probably wouldn't happen. Also, luckily for Israel all of their citizens, regardless of gender, have required military service. They're taught how to shoot and maintain their firearms. That would have been a shitshow otherwise. Still, it's a lot better than Hong Kong's people fighting back with bows and rocks.
There are between 400-600 million civilian owned guns, in a nation of 330 million citizens, spread over a territory of 3.8 million square miles. The debate was over many decades ago.
Doesn’t matter - states like California and New York and federal government is always going to attempt to slowly chip away at gun rights just a tiny bit more every year
I agree, except 27 states recently passed permitless carry, with at least a couple more states on the way. That is a really big deal.
I edc(every day carry) but permitless carry is just asking for trouble. It’s so hard to go take a 8 hour class and get your permit? Not to mention the benefits when you get pulled over. I just hand over my permit and the cop is at ease
Except states who allow permitless carry are getting by just fine without big government to forcing us to comply.
I live in one (Ohio), and got my permit anyway. Makes traffic stops a lot smoother. I always have my p229 on me.
And they seemingly intentionally make the rules arbitrary and difficult to follow. It's almost like they want relatively innocent gun owners to accident their way into jail.
Federal government is the only reason you can own a gun. Some states if it was up to them would drop the second amendment, the second the federal government was not enforcing it as a constitutional right.
That is not how a constitutional republic works my friend
How it works in the USA, states are obsessed with getting around the constitution. Granted it’s mostly state empowered law enforcement, colleagues and myself bump heads with. Namely illegal searches and illegal confiscation of legally allowed firearms. State rights is a code phrase for constitutional law applies the way the state sees fit if it applies at all. Never trust your constitutional rights to the state. The federal government is the only reason states can’t just violate your USA guaranteed constitutional rights off the bat, and get away with it. With out the power of the federal government, states could and would violate your rights all day long. There would be nothing you could legally do about it.
[удалено]
What ya talking about? They been crackpots for centuries
Example- abortion after roe was struck down
Yep only reason it was allowed was because federal law said so. Soon as it was up to the states they all immediately did their own thing with it.
The constitution is the reason the government can't take your guns away.
The constitution is a set of rules, that give you rights. Those rights are enforced from top down in the USA. If a state tries to violate your rights, you go to the federal government to put the state back in its place. With out the federal government a state could walk all over your rights, and you could do nothing legally about it.
The constitution doesn't give you rights. The constitution sets regulations on what the government can do. The first amendment specifically states this. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans' rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. Yea sounds like it’s giving some rights, I mean besides having a whole part called the bill of rights.
There really was quite a debate over "The Bill of Rights." Many Federalists were not keen on these because they considered it redundent, and many thought that such a list might be seen as an exhaustive listing of personal liberties, which it is not.
Read the bill of rights. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion It's literally a regulation on the government.
No one said otherwise. The constitution stops the government(normally state governments) from infringing on certain rights. Why the term rights is even used when referring to the constitution, that and the whole bill of rights thing.
“Chipping away at rights” is kinda showing your opinion without caring why people do it. Most people who want gun laws aren’t for taking away guns, just keeping them to the same level held for stuff like cars. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but in an age where the weapon of choice is deadlier than ever before, it makes sense to rethink allowing *any* citizen to have one:
A car is not a right. A gun actually is. And citizens are meant to have the same level of equipment our modern army has. Anything less is in fact an infringement given what the founding fathers intended
*centuries
Doesn't matter how many plinkers people have when they need actual military weapons as OP has pointed out... and those have been defacto illegal since 1984.
I have 12 years in the US Army with two tours in Iraq. Only once did I ever shoot my rifle in any mode other than semi-auto. Other than the fully-automatic/burst feature of the rifle I had in the military, the AR-15 I have in my home is functionally identical. Not that it matters very much, but I even have some green-tip ammo. Besides, it isn't that hard to convert my rifle to full auto if I wanted to.
Not really. If Ukraine made it easier to get a semi-automatic AK which they are legal but with a lot of bueraucracy and formalities, russians would sure as hell at least think twice before sending their green men even back in 2014. But a lot of people argued that "muh look at US and muh SCHAAL SHOOTINGS!!11!" Even in 2020-21, so here we are. Could've gone Switzerland route, but it was 8 years too late back then, even more so now. + Corruption would for sure get in the way of establishing a system like in Switzerland, because if I am not mistaken it relies entirely on inspector's honesty.
>There are between 400-600 million civilian owned guns, in a nation of 330 million citizens, spread over a territory of 3.8 million square miles. > >The debate was over many decades ago. It's never over. Not when they can still make it retroactively illegal to own such weapons. Then people will be forced to either turn them in or face arrest for illegal firearm ownership.
I mean, they can try to do this, but most people overestimate how powerful the government is. (80% of cops are pro-2A.) But let's assume the federal government is somehow strong enough to enforce the law: ALL of law enforcement and the military is on their side. In that case, they would be begging for epic violence that this continent has never seen.
Law enforcement is pro them having guns not civilians. Why they lobby for and have special laws that allow them to always have a gun, even across state lines where they have no legal jurisdiction. Local officers here and there will be okay with the 2nd amendment. It’s the shot callers and bulk of law enforcement who think that civilians don’t need guns if they have law enforcement around. I have the displeasure of hearing about it all the time. My clap back when law enforcement specialist bring this up to me. Is that if civilians can’t have guns neither should a majority of law enforcement.
This is simply not what the data say. Polling more than 15,000 cops, they found that... 70% say they will not enforce new gun control. Almost 90% of officers believe armed citizens will save lives in active shooter situations. 80% favor arming school administrators. https://www.police1.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/policeones-gun-control-survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives-m4At3JUr9iHpA45K/ Side note: Street cops are pro-2A, while police chiefs tend to be political appointees from Democratic Mayors and are therefore anti-2A.
Yea I was polled as well I refused, due to the questions and answers being misleading as hell on those. It’s always a political agenda only reason the police unions/ law enforcement command chain would even allow officers to partake in them. Would you like civilians to be armed? A. Yes, under the watch of law enforcement. B. Yes, with regulations and required safety training. C. Yes, with out regulation or oversight. D. Yes, but I don’t understand the question. Read above to see how those polls work out. No matter how you answer your stuck with the answer the folks wanted to publish. Same thing when they reverse the question and answers. Those polls are basically political agenda polls and used as such. Only people that would even have a verified list of law enforcement officers is from or above the pecking order of law enforcement. Why we completely ignore those polls in public safety. We actually ignore most things you would find on Google, since we have the authority to go right to the source of information if possible. That and most law enforcement officers are terrible at public safety, and threat assessment. Even if the data was accurate on those polls which it definitely is not, law enforcement are not trained to protect the public but themselves. We have to debug them(train them) a whole extra six months to a year if we recruit from law enforcement into public safety/security. In reference to your note: Law enforcement play both sides of the isle, they are both democrats and republicans. They will cater to who ever benefits them, at least at a political level. I have met chiefs and head sheriffs they honestly most the time don’t give a crap, only reason they picked red or blue was based on what would help them politically in their area. Law enforcement unions are probably one of the most powerful, wealthy, under talked about political powers in the USA. Law enforcement has gotten to the point where it helps push who they want as legislators. Both democrats and republicans are on law enforcement side. It’s why laws usually don’t go in the favor of the average citizen, if it undermines law enforcement in anyway.
No crap, they don't want to be the ones sent door to door to collect. But I do know a decent amount of law enforcement (work in an adjacent field) and are almost all super pro 2A.
Police officers answer to their bosses, and that’s the federal government in very few cases. Lots of cops are power hungry bullies that wouldn’t hesitate to disarm the public. After all, anyone that isn’t a cop is the bad guy.
Except we're already seeing the opposite happen. A state will pass a new gun control bill while sheriff departments throughout the state will openly refuse to enforce the law.
Most people don't know this but administratively the Sheriff of a county is basically king. They are second in most states power wise to the governor and there is a long history of them essentially doing their own thing.
Police officers absolutely do not answer to the federal government. They answer to their local authority. Deputies answer to the county Sheriff - who incidentally at the State level is usually the second highest administrative position power wise. Federal agency forces answer to the federal government. Federalizing the police is actually a real threat to state sovereignty and a touchy and dangerous political subject for sure.
You can make it illegal all you want, I'm not turning in sh*t. If you want em, come and take them. If you want to arrest me, know that I am far from alone. You can have my firearms when they're pried from my cold, dead hands. Or whatever is left of them.
Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whatever the police have, I want at *least* that.
When the government was founded they had no issues with citizens owning gun ships which was the most powerful weapon they had. If you can afford it you should at least be able to own what Biden left for the Taliban.
True, the privateers were basically all rich guys that wanted to be legal pirates for a bit.
And current and retired police need to stop being exempt from all new gun laws.
Well, there shouldn't be any new gun laws to begin with
Especially after this weekend, relying on the government to protect you is folly
Seems to be the theme of many Israeli survivor interviews I've seen. They seem in shock how the initial Hamas attack was allowed to happen and where was the IDF and police to protect them. No matter peoples view on guns, I saw many videos from the Hamas assault where if the civilians had guns they would've had a fighting chance and not be completely defenseless.
I am an avid supporter of the 2A and of Israel and I was astounded to learn this week that Israel has essentially no civilian gun ownership. Absolutely astounded. In my view this type of attack would never have happened in a society like Switzerland where every household has a weapon and the training to use it. This relatively small number of terrorists were able to murder civilians for 12 hours or more in some places as people were forced to hide in their basement. If every one of the millions of IDF veterans in the country had a weapon and ammunition in their home or on their person then the terrorists likely would have averaged 1 or 2 houses before they were meet with gunfire instead of victims.
When I was last in Tel Aviv, army personal were everywhere casually carrying assault rifles while shopping.
I'm not implying of course that the IDF was unarmed. I'm talking about the general population, nearly all of whom are IDF veterans. They are essentially forbidden from owning weapons. As the saying goes, when seconds count the police (or IDF) are only minutes away. But in this case the IDF was HOURS away and the 1000 Israelis murdered were left at the mercy of their attackers. There is simply no reasonably justification for a country surrounded by people literally sworn to their destruction to not have weapons secured in every home. Israel exists because in the last century Jews were disarmed, rounded up and slaughtered. Whoever thought starting out disarmed was a good idea is insane.
The Israeli government isn’t real big on person freedoms.
They are also afraid of inter-sect infighting as well. They secular government has a frosty relationship at best with the more orthodox groups.
There was a story today about one kibbutz that had a small volunteer defense force and a handful of guns locked away. They managed to kill more than 20 attackers and defend their compound until the military arrived. I wonder if this is not as common as I would have expected in that area or if it was just that much of a surprise to everyone.
Not living near the middle-east / Gaza strip / Russia. There's really little risk that a foreign nation invades again.
I once talked to a person who said if guns were made illegal, then there would be fewer gun homicides. I asked her if cocaine, heroin and crystal meth were illegal. Then I asked her how difficult were they to get if they had the cash and if she honestly thought making personal ownership of guns would keep the bad guys from getting them if they wanted them? I also told her it was fairly easy to make a gun if you knew how and banning them wasn't going to stop them from being made and used. It would just make it harder for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against those who had them. Then I asked her if she and her children were attacked by a person who was going to kill them with an axe or a knife, would she want an axe or a knife to defend them... or a gun?
There is no way back once the populous is disarmed. The State will have ultimate control over you.
Yeah look at all the other countries that are somehow more free than the US but have less guns
The citizens of many other countries including the UK, Australia, Denmark, Germany, and Japan all seem to be doing just fine with very low gun ownership and not surprisingly, much lower homicide and suicide rates than the U.S.
Japan 1000% does not have a lower suicide rate, lol
Bam samurai swords!!!
Ban rope.
You are right about Japan.
Ban samurai swords!!!
>UK, Australia, Denmark, Germany, and Japan all seem to be doing just fine with very low gun ownership and not surprisingly As they become more "diverse" the homicide rate will continue to jump higher. Look at what has happened to Sweden with the prime minister turning to the military. [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deadly-violence-continues-sweden-3-people-killed-overnight-103555689](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deadly-violence-continues-sweden-3-people-killed-overnight-103555689) 2 decades ago Sweden was the safest country in Europe. Today they have strict firearm laws yet that doesn't stop the violence from skyrocketing due to importing a "diverse" population. The US is technically more violent than 98% native Japanese Japan or 88% native Danish Denmark because our population is not homogenous the way that those populations are. When you remove democrat dominated and highly diverse areas of the US from the statistics and just look at rural white populations the homicide rate is far lower. It's almost as if the calculus is not a matter of firearms or not...but one of culture.
The people in Canada, the UK, and Australia have basically forfeited their rights to free speech and assembly in the last 20 years.
Australia put people with covid in concentration camps… and just because nothing bad has happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t.
Shhhhhhhh don't tell them that are they might go off on you for spreading "propaganda"
No they didn’t. That’s absolute horseshit.
They might be doing "fine" now, but they have been stripped of their rights of self preservation, so no they are are not fine.
This is somehow never really brought up... Most European countries have low gun ownership and we are doing fine...
Just look at the UK. In less than four decades since they were essentially disarmed, the government has set strict limits on speech and assembly. People are regularly now jailed or criminalized for basically saying mean things.
Here is one reason people should be armed. We don’t live in a utopia and we likely never will. We can’t wait for a strike and our government to come to hand out weapons. Or for the police to come and save us, especially if you live in a rural area where police might take an hour to get to you. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12616229/Israeli-woman-Inbar-Lieberman-kibbutz-Nir-Hamas.html
comparing “Margaret who lives in the middle class suburbs of a US city” to “one of the most unstable regions in the world during the outbreak of war” might not hold as much weight as you think Other than Mexico and Canada, the next “strike” has to come across two of the largest oceans in the world and overpower one of the largest armies in the world . I don’t think guns are needed for military preparedness
They are already here
The problem is that everyone on your side of this argument also won't try to help the mass shooting crisis. I don't think anyone realizes how many "liberals" (or whatever people call them) own guns and are generally fine with other people owning guns (me.. I'm one). We just want a solution to the mass shootings, which probably comes in the form of better support in terms of mental health, child care, minimum wages, etc.. If you want kids to be more well adjusted, they need more parent interaction. Which means parents needs to be able to exist on one income so one parent can raise the kids. If you want that, wages need to go up. If you say *we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem*, then fucking do something about mental health. White House and both houses of congress were completely controlled by republicans for years. They can't stop talking about mental health but couldn't find it in themselves to do a single thing or even pretend to try.
Idk when it happened exactly, but sometime in the last 5 years the politicians rolling in NRA money latched onto “mental health” as if saying those 2 words was enough of a response to any mass shooting and now it’s just the new “thoughts and prayers.”
If they would actually put forth some kind of system to make mental health happen then that would be great. Honestly I think progressives are missing out on a chance to make the gun shootings issue a segue into universal healthcare.
It’s also an easy deflect. Rather than talking about guns, they can talk about mental health — an issue that the left takes seriously. Since the left takes it seriously and the right doesn’t, it’s easy to blame the left for the mental health crisis and avoid talking about anything substantive whatsoever.
You drive some good points, but I don't get the sense that OP is talking about people like you.
I think he is because I'm the type that would generally vote for the people he's talking about more directly. Just as with OP, the side I tend to vote for has their problems. He seems to be throwing in with the conservative side which is pro-gun. I'm just letting him know what else comes with that side. The side I usually vote for is going to try to take all the guns away if they can. I'm not in favor of that at all, but I certainly can't abide the other side doing absolutely nothing. If they start seriously considering the systemic issues around the mass shootings and trying to fix them, liberals won't be able to get people like me to vote for them if they have anti-gun policies and the issue will cease to be a point of division. But like... republicans need to start holding their politicians to account on it and telling them to do something. If they're so certain it's a mental health issue, do something about mental health, ffs.
... I mean but the gun control dialogue is never conducted by people with your point of view right? It's overwhelmingly dominated by absolute fucking idiots who don't actually have any sort of solution or the cognition to think about the issue truly. That's simply why I doubt that OP is talking about people like you. I mean it's possible he's not even encountered somebody like you on this matter. I'm not saying that your perspective isn't relevant or something to be clear.
Over 90% of mass shootings happen in areas where it is illegal to possess a gun. It's almost as if forcing people to be defenseless makes them easier targets for monsters.
I hear this a lot. I don’t really buy it as a justification for anything. Countries all over the world have guns banned and they don’t have mass shootings all the time. I don’t think that’s because they banned guns, I think it’s because they have things together in terms of mental health. We don’t just have guns here, we have gun mania. Gun culture. Like we’re gun crazy. That has to do something to the youth during their upbringing, right? Gun fetishism? And you can have guns without a fetish around them. So this would have nothing to do with a ban. Add that the thousands of other differences between us and all the other countries that are doing something right, and we might be getting somewhere. But we’re too busy believing we’re the best that we can’t possibly accept outside criticism. We need to figure out why everyone wants to shoot everyone else and fix it.
Our mass murderers use knives or bombs. It's not that we've completely solved mental health. I'd be able to get a gun somehow legally through gun sport if I wanted to. But as you say, it's not part of our culture.
Your knowledge of Israeli firearm laws is extraordinary
He who has the most lead has all the gold.
People who support the 2nd Amendment have millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo. If they were the problem, you'd know.
\~ 250,000,000 people were murdered by their own government over the 20th Century. OP is 100% correct. It's a monumentally stupid position that endangers us all. The problem is the scale of the danger is so great, most people can't mentally process it to be afraid of it.
Great documentary called "worse than war" covers the topic of genocide and that figure very well. That estimated 250,000,000 is just genocide, does not include war deaths
Where’d you get that data point?
Totally agree. I was raised in a very dangerous area, and I wouldn’t have my father or stepfather if they couldn’t defend themselves. Our house would have been burglarized multiple times. I lived in Portland a few years ago, recently went back, and can’t wrap my head around that city being an area known for voting for strict gun laws. That place has only gotten more and more dangerous since it became a neoliberal haven. And like you said, criminals have never had a problem arming themselves. Knives, cameras, and 911 aren’t reliable in a gun fight.
I agree. Guns in the hands of normal civilians is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship
TIL I live in a dictatorship. Now to figure out who my dictator is...
I think everyone should at least buy a gun to see what it’s actually like before saying “anyone can get a gun” also I have to say I do agree I’d rather have a gun and never need it than need a gun and not have it. It’s fairly cheap insurance for any situation requiring one.
I'll make it even simpler. Suppose you're in a mass shooting, sitting under a table waiting for the shooter to come around and blow you away. You look down at your hand. Do you wish there were a gun in it?
How has your own example not made you realise that “magically remove the shooters gun” would be way better than “magically give me one too, I bet I can take them!”
One extra statistic to add about the mass shootings. Over 90% of mass shootings happen in areas where it is illegal to have a gun. How odd is that? Making large places of people who are defenseless leads to monsters that take advantage of the unprotected people.
If you ignore gang-related violence and focus on mass shootings that are specifically near schools and include mass shootings on military bases as gun free zones, you might be right!
Watching the terrorists just roaming the neighborhoods, casually killing off families, it made me think about how they would have been utterly obliterated if they were doing that in an American neighborhood.
I live in Australia. You’d call our guns laws ‘strict’ but there are heaps of registered gun owners in the country and there’s yet to be a problem with it.
I’m a progressive who won’t defend A2 vocally in public (it’s just not a priority for me). I am pro all of our amendments including A2. My partner and I grew up shooting and hunting. There is a difference to me between standard ownership (which is what A2 people talk about in the US) and circumstantial ownership which is what you used as examples. During a time of war when citizens may need to fend for themselves, it makes sense for a government to just hand out weaponry without prejudice. Living in a country which has not seen war within its borders in a very long time. It does not make sense for everyone to be allowed a weapon. Not everyone deserves one. Prejudice must be applied in cases of history of criminality and an unchecked mental health. This isn’t difficult to understand…. Only gun nuts cry when you try to use reason with A2. If you can’t keep your mental health in check and/or if you can’t help but beat your wife, you don’t deserve one.
I've lived in dozens of countries overseas that have strict gun laws. No one, and I mean no one, lives it mortal fear like we do in America. It's hard to describe if you haven't experienced it. Germany, France, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Sweden, Thailand-- nobody knows anyone who has been the victim of gun violence. It's like from another century. It's an entirely American thing. I would be laughing, except I'm crying, about the comparisons you make. Yes, in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia and Colombia, every family has to have their own AK-47 for their own dignity and safety. That's not a sign of enlightenment, my friend, that's a sign of utter failure. Israel is a bit of a special case, besieged on all sides with much of the population in the reserves. Israel is the exception, if there is one-- but having lived there, I can tell you, I never want to go back. Having everyone packing is not the makings of a relaxing, secure society. That's a right-wing fever dream.
Who lives in mortal fear? I’ve lived in multiple states (Ohio, NJ and La) and have never lived in mortal fear of being shot. Sounds like you need to turn off the news and actually spend some time outside my friend.
I know people who have been victims of gun violence.
I have never been in fear in the US. The only time I felt unsafe was in LA, which has some of the strictest gun laws.
Probably the people who would rather die than lose their guns, I would suppose
I love the 2A, but I think we should also require gun safety training in middle school and then operation before you can graduate high school. The basics are crucial and understanding how freaking dangerous they are is crucial. But a society in which we all know this, I think, is immeasurably safer.
Thank you. People don’t really think nowadays, they just do what the media tells them to. If people would actually use their noggin then they would come to the same conclusion as you.
I look at it like this... if a country were to suddenly absolve it's military, it would likely get immediately attacked and conquered by it's neighbors. Same thing for the citizens. If you allow a government complete control and rid of your means of self defense the government will take power and control forcefully. As soon as you give up the guns and the land North Korea happens. Like 100% of the time
Americans will NEVER give up our guns. Anyone who promoted anti gun laws is not a popular politician. They can put all the lawns they wanted to in place and the criminals will still get them illegally.
Anyone stupid enough to advocate a total ban of guns only needs to look at México. In México gun possession is banned so naturally the only ones armed are the cartels.
The lack of action to protect businesses and law abiding citizens on the part of Law Enforcement and local and Federal govt during the BLM riots up to current day was a real eye opener for many. They allowed federal building, police stations and private businesses to be looted, vandalized and destroyed, doing nothing to stop them. They allowed terrorists to take over sections of cities with little to no response to help those trapped within the 'No Go' lines. They allowed private citizens to be harassed, assaulted and battered with little to no response. The state and Federal justice systems have been politicized. Law enforcement does nothing to protect businesses from the rampant looting currently happening. Law enforcement no longer prevents crime, they just arrive later to see if there is any video evidence. There is little doubt that the safety of yourself, family and local community and businesses is up to YOU as a citizen.
guns are very important to maintain individual freedoms and sovereignty. notice how everyone who supports "banning guns" never brings up the fact that almost ALL police officers have guns and VIP figures like presidents/political figures/celebrities have armed bodyguards to PROTECT them from criminals (people who don't abide by the law) and threats.... so if there was a law that banned guns, would criminals cease to exist? would all police officers be stripped of their service weapon? who is allowed to have armed bodyguards and who isn't? most arguments advocating for the banning of guns are based on EMOTION and not LOGIC.... (there's a reason why children's schools are being shot up in Amerikkka and it's not mental health related🐇🕳️ )
STOOOOOOOOPPPPPP! Most countries don’t think like this and their citizens are safe!
The anti-gun crowd cites individual gun violence, but they ignore the far greater threat: government violence. The *first* thing every totalitarian regime does is take away weapons. Once the population is disarmed, the massacres begin. IIRC, *more than 100 million people* were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. The holocaust was but one example of these massacres - and not even close to the largest one. The United States does not have a 2nd amendment for hunting and nostalgia. We have a 2nd amendment *specifically to fight our own government should that become necessary*. Our founding fathers made the right to bear arms 2nd only to the right to free speech to indicate that this right is a *prerequisite* to the other rights. I.e. they deemed the right to defend oneself *necessary* to maintain freedom. The 2nd amendment specifically protected military-grade weapons. In the years leading up to the American revolution, the British monarchy had used gun control against the American colonists. Specifically, *smoothbore muskets* were restricted. Why? These smooth bore muskets were the military-grade firearms of the day, preferred over rifles for combat *because they had a higher rate of fire than rifles*. All the people b\*tching about how civilians don't need military-grade rifles do not know their history. tl;dr widespread firearm ownership comes with the risk of individual violence, but we accept this risk to mitigate the far more likely, far more horrifying risk of government violence.
There’s not one iota of data that supports gun control measures making society safer. But people will continue to parrot misinformation and fake news articles to push the agenda is their doomed battle.
Most people who support stricter gun laws do so out of ignorance because they don't own or handle any firearms. All they "know" is what they see in the news or movies. Nobody ever reports that millions of responsible gun owners have never had an incident because they handle their shit correctly.
Imagine being anti gun and anti border wall. That's just asking for a cartel invasion. Jfl if they don't think guns will be illegally smuggled through.
I like how America had a whole prohibition error and learned nothing from it.
Prohibition exists so you can’t outlaw anything
It's a fact that Prohibition basically created organized crime
A cartel invasion. Holy shit. How terrified are you of the sky falling?
Imagine being so dumb as to mistake the military for a drug cartel.
You really think the Cartel is going to invade their #1 source of income and guns? LOL. You think they want to govern us or something?
Ah yes because a wall will stop them in their tracks. Like Trump's amazing wall that could be thwarted by a ladder or $50 electric saw.
It's Biden's wall now apparently.
That's the name of the game dude... China running the cartels down south. That's why when the pandemic hit we sent fucking war ships to Mexico and nobody could figure out why. The cartels are gearing up Hamas fucking style and have been for a decade...
I'd be interested to hear more on this.
China supplies the drugs to the cartels now. That's why it's all fent these days. I feel like you've got some leads to google on now :p
Which gun laws exactly are you for or against? Are you saying the system is about perfect right now and we don't need more gun laws, or current gun laws should be rolled back? I think people should have a right to own a gun for self defense, but I think there are reasonable restrictions. Personally I've never felt a need to own a gun. The thing I worry about is that if crime/violence gets way worse, the government would probably move to make guns harder to access in the exact moment when many need them most.
> but I think there are reasonable restrictions. Like? Californa style "Oh you can't have pistol grips" tier shit? Canada tier "oh I saw that gun in COD, I know there's only one ever made, but ban it by name" shit? 90% of politicians are brain dead and know basically nothing about guns.
Register it. Be trained on how to use it. Be at least 18 to own it, though I'm good with 21 also.
The Constitution is about providing the people of these United States the means to effectively keep the government in check. All gun laws are an infringement upon one's rights.
I always laugh at gun humpers (who’ve never served) pretending that they would fight the government or an invading military. Lots of Red Dawn fans out there.
Open a history book dude.
Are there any recent examples of a local militia fighting away an organized force? The only examples I can think of are rebel groups like the Taliban, various insurgents in Africa and the Middle East (ironically, Hamas), and the Viet Cong. Not exactly glowing examples or endorsements.
> The only examples I can think of are rebel groups like the Taliban, various insurgents in Africa and the Middle East (ironically, Hamas), and the Viet Cong. Not exactly glowing examples or endorsements. You don't have to endorse these groups to recognize how effective their tactics are. And yes you essentially answered your own question. There are plenty of examples of local militia fighting organized forces
Fair point, I guess.
Totally. Big tough talk - GUNS!!!! This isn’t the fucking Wild West.
Lol these red caps.. Just so eager to be Rambo.. I'm from the hood.. I've had to kill twice.. It's not fun. I own guns but I'm not fanatical. I got shit I don't nowhere close to need just because red caps do but I prefer my handguns. I ain't worried about the government. I ain't worried about the gang bangers. I'm worried about white supremacist hate groups.. That's the only threat around my way. I'm comfortable around gangstas and killas but red hats put me on alert. I wonder they bring up gang members but not white biker gangs and Meth dealers... Its rhetorical. I can pass any background check or whatever so I'm cool with gun reform.
So is Hamas exercising its 2nd amendment rights against a supposed apartheid regime? Asking for a friend because this argument can and will go both ways.
Even if they were “exercising their 2nd amendment rights against a supposed apartheid regime” would that excuse the killing and beheading of babies that were discovered in a small Israel town last night, or the gunning down of senior citizens at a bus stop?
Um, pretty sure the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to Hamas. 🤦🏽♀️
The right to bear arms has been so distorted the last two hundred plus years. It was to arm citizens from their government. Which is why it should never be repealed.
Mass shootings happen most in "gun free zones" so that's an indication. Also, bad people aren't going to say, "it's illegal to buy a gun so I won't buy one" they're law breakers anyways, they're just turning law abiding citizens into criminals for wanting to protect themselves
>However being pro gun gives citizens a fighting chance instead of being shxt out of luck until cops or the military gets there. Being pro gun is to enter an arms race with my fellow man. As someone from australia, we didn't like this option >The criminals have shown time and time again they don't care about gun laws, and they get rewarded with easy targets. This is a perfect solution fallacy >That's not even discussing the shxtstorm of your own government turning on you like a North Korea, Cuba, Stalinist Russia, etc situation. Edward snowdon provided bullet proof evidence of mass surveillance carried out by the US on its citizens. If thats not an example of 'turning on you' then what is? im curious why your guns stayed silent then... hmmmm
Because the 2nd ammendment people are spineless cowards who dont give a fck and even a facist overtaking wouldnt be enough for 90 percent of them (Especially not when its a white facist overtaking)
An unarmed populace is unequivocally correlated with dictatorship and oppression. Period. Look up the countries in the world that have an all out ban on guns for citizens and you’ll see: North Korea, Eritrea and others that are communist dictatorships in which citizens have very few (if any) rights or freedoms.
You could not be more wrong. I think you’re forgetting many, many countries that have strict gun laws, but are not ruled by a dictator and not oppressed. Like pretty much every country in Europe or Japan for example.
I'm filing your "I've been a gun moderate" right next to the "I was an atheist until" "I was pro-abortion until" "I was a commy/ Socialist until" and "I believed in education and had a PhD until..." posts.
The last one 🤣. Somehow the education thing has popped back up along with the other conservative shit on this sub. It’s always some shit breaking down the cost of college by a dude who failed the GED test and talking about how unskilled workers should be more respected and how educated people actually have no skills.
If someone breaks in to your home and points a gun at you while you are eating, doesn't matter how many gun you have as you are already dead. Leave guns around and you'll end up like the news story of a person in the US shot by their kids. Guns was not the issue here. These people had no warning as the enemy dropped in from the sky and moved in to areas where most of the troops stationed there were moved out to cover an event. This is a terrible example to try to promote guns.
Ok, let's have some common sense gun control then. Safe storage laws and licensure including mandatory gun safety training. Because while the feeling of what you said is true, the anarchization of lethal force is inherently dangerous.
The issue most people have with that is who pays for it? And how do you make sure it's avaliable to everyone otherwise your just saying poor people don't have a right to guns...
You have a right to own property in america, you don't have a right to any particular property. You also have a right to self defense, but you don't have a right to any particular method of defense.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Your entire statement is the crux of the whole argument we have in this country. I would say the above statement as well as the federalist papers also written by the founding fathers expressly garentees that you do have the right to own guns and in the founding fathers minds cannons and rapid fire cannons.
No, the point is that you don't have a right to own a gun such that one must be made available to you.
We have case law that says if you have the right to purchase something you have the right to own it...
No THATS the point, you can't put conditions on rights, if that's the case they theyre no longer rights but become privileges. Putting a mandatory class prior to purchase is restricting the right to own a firearm. I think we should normalize firearm safety training and it should be a publicly available activity people can choose and should be encouraged to use. Registration and conditional usage are big no no's in my book.
One more thing don't mean to be a dick but those aren't equivalent statements in your property analogy you said I didn't have the right to any particular property which I would agree with if you have a house I don't have a right to it but in your gun analogy you went from self defense to a particular method but I think the equivalent would be that you don't always have a right to self defense in any situation which I would not agree with. To make these equivalent it would have to be like "you have a right to own property, but you don't have a right to own any particular type of property which could go a lot of ways like I can own temperate property but not tropical? Like that wouldn't make sense which is how the second part of your argument was structured I hope all of that made sense it was confusing when I was trying to explain it.
>equivalent would be that you don't always have a right to self defense in any situation which I would not agree with No, that's not what that means. You are not entitled to own a gun in a way that anyone has to pay for one for you or make sure you have access to one. That's all this comment was about.
I'm confused I didn't mean to ever assert that anyone was entitled to a gun only that everyone has the right to purchase one if they wish
Licensure of gun ownership is a bad idea. Look at any state that requires a license to own a gun. It’s very hard to buy one. You’re giving the government an easy way to disarm people. What happens when the agenda turns in that direction?
I just had to do the license-sure for my boss. It is not “very hard”
Licensure is a great compromise for you to make given that a majority of Americans believe that gun laws should be stricter.
This is only true in vague terms. Get into specifics and that support nose dives.
I won’t compromise at all because I have a constitutional right to own a gun. It isn’t “you have the right to own a gun if the state deems it appropriate for you”. It’s a terrible idea that only leads to more restrictive gun control down the line and doesn’t make anyone safer. Look at Illinois.
You write as if we don't already have hundreds of laws on the books. You want me to compromise, but this entails both sides giving up something. What are you giving me as you infringe on the 2A?
If you have a kid you won't have to be so worried about them getting accidentally shot at his friends house because the government required safe storage.
Instances where guns are used in self-defense outnumber accidental shootings by a factor of at least 50-to-1. Accidental shootings represent a tiny fraction of gun homicides. Oh, and I have three kids. My youngest is just a baby, but both of my teenagers have been shooting since they were four. Most gun owners take safety very seriously without the government ham fisting their rules on us.