Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

The article I read seemed to say the exact opposite and went into detail about how farmers in countries that forbid guns deal with predators and pests, but I will concede that point to you. Farmers should be one of those people who can be licensed to have guns, IMO

Yes. It's part of the freedom from want which is considered a fundamental right by the UN and by the USA since we are signatories to the UN Charter. If you want to discuss Healthcare please start another thread. I only brought it up as a comparison.

Any amount of deaths is "significant" particularly to the families of the victims. Again, are you arguing against even gun SAFETY now?

I read the Constitution and the history surrounding it. The American Revolution was largely brought about not by taxes (which are mentioned only once in the Declaration of Independence) but by the depredations of the British Army (which are clearly delineated several times). The British Army had become very much an occupying force by the latter 1700s in America

The 2nd Amendment was written in the larger context of the USA not having a large Standing Army, which the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid. The idea was to provide a large pool of riflemen which could be called up in time of need.

Since then we have a developed a rather large standing Army and probably will have one throughout our foreseeable future. They have a rather large force of men who are trained and practiced in the use of modern weaponry. We have no further need for the 2nd Amendment and it should be repealed.

 

Where exactly does the right to abortion come from?

 

What article? The one that I linked to?

Yeah, I really going to take seriously anything the UN has to say about human rights! The UN, who put Afghanistan on it's Human Rights Council!

No, I think gun training is a sensible thing, but mandatory training would be an infringement and we know what the 2nd Amendment says about that.

Wouldn't a tyrannical government be a "time of need?"

 

No other nation in the world possessed the same thriving private firearms culture as the united states, however. That is the glaring difference. In the united states owning a firearm is recognized as a right, and government cannot demand individuals justify their decision of why they wish to own a firearm. It is not comparable nor compatible with any other nation in the world that is held up for an example.

 

That is incorrect. The left is trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

The right to keep and bear arms is about a lot more than national defense. People have the right to have guns for private self defense as well. And that right is just as vital today as it has ever been.

 

Exactly which constitutional rights is the left in the united states attempting to protect, preserve, and enhance?

 

Perhaps without guns, the Vegas shooter would have turned to a weapon other than a dagger.

168 people murdered with a bomb:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

108 people murdered with bombs:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shijiazhuang_bombings

100 people murdered with a bomb:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolgrad_palace_bombing

86 people murdered with a truck:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

 

Then do not comment further on a matter that, by the admission of yourself, is not actually understood by yourself.

 

The biggest help would probably be red flag laws (provided they have adequate due process) and comprehensive background checks.

Lots of these shooters could have been stopped with red flag laws. And this Odessa/Midland Texas shooter got a used gun in a private sale with no background check because he failed a background check when he tried to buy a new gun.

Safe storage requirements could reduce gun thefts as well, which would curtail the illegal gun market (although it would be unreasonable to demand a $30,000 gun safe for a $250 gun).

Requiring people to report gun thefts to the police would alert law enforcement if a group of criminals started stealing a bunch of guns to supply the black market.

 

Some folks are claiming red flag laws are pushed by liberals to curtail freedom but that is not the case. I understand the fear but it is probably the ONLY law that can curtail an unhinged family member because it is often the family that knows what is happening. Before red flag laws all the police could tell family members was that they could do nothing until a crime was committed. We have the red flag law here in very red and gun friendly Indiana.

 

That or the news is discussing them more... You also have a movement to remove gang shootings from "mass shootings" unless they want the total number to be big then they are included.

 

All of them, including the 2nd amendment if you believe in common sense.

 

The need for private self-defense is a failure of the government.

 

LOL, because when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Only in an authoritarian government can the government, by taking away all freedom, control the people.

 

You are free to fantasize as you must.

Meanwhile, there are avid gunsters who wish to make America great again by reducing the slaughter of the American people facilitated by the firearm permissiveness:

I anticipate that the scandal-ridden "Fancy Pants" LaP won't be scaring the shooty boys with his incontinence-inducing, lurid tales of Big Blue Meanies snatching away one's "precious."

​

 

Fake Don will have a tough time squirming out of universal background checks, supported by all but an extremist fringe element:

The gunman in a West Texas rampage that left seven dead obtained his AR-style rifle through a private sale, allowing him to evade a federal background check that blocked him from getting a gun in 2014 due to a "mental health issue," a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

https://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Neighbor-Texas-gunman-was-violent-aggressive-14408142.php​

 

That is incorrect. Most Democrats try to violate the Second Amendment, and for no reason other than the fact that they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

If so, then it is a failure that has happened with all governments in history, and will happen with all governments in the future.

 

Their own actions and positions have demonstrated otherwise, what with how they believe firearm manufacturers should be subjected to lawsuits when their products are misused by those who do not legally own them, or how individuals should be stripped of their constitutional rights on the basis of what they believe rather than what they do.

 

And attempting to curtail or outright prohibit private individuals from legally defending themselves against harm does nothing to address that failure. It does nothing more than suggest resentment on the part of government for being unable to protect its own people, so it will not allow the people to protect themselves either.

 

There wasn't an amendment needed to put though restrictions on full auto.

 

And yet during that time, congress acknowledged that they could not implement a total prohibition on fully-automatic firearms, as such would violate the second amendment of the united states constitution.

 

There have been graphs posted in how many mass murders there are in the US compared to similar western nations. And the US is at the bottom of the list, by miles. And to... I am correct.

The justification is the amount of mass murders compared to similar western nations.

So what

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ive...unds-steel-polymer-black/FC-712195498356.html
I doubt that

I sourced...
Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol gripand sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

So what

 

If the united states is going to be compared to specifically selected nations to support implementing new firearm-related restrictions, such as the nation of Australia, it is equally fair game and valid to compare it to nations that already possess such firearm-related restrictions, but still maintain firearm-related homicide rates that greatly exceed the levels of the united states, such as the nation of Venezuela.

 

That's because people can actually provide a justification for restricting full auto weapons.

That does not change the reality that adding pistol grips to rifles does not cause a single murder.

That is incorrect. Adding pistol grips to rifles does not cause a single murder.

No such justification. Adding pistol grips to rifles does not cause a single murder.

So you were wrong to refer to the AR-15 as a weapon with a massive magazine.

That's not a five round magazine.

You shouldn't doubt it. An AR-15 with a five round magazine in it, has no more than five rounds in the magazine.

You are sourcing a fraudulent definition.

Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire

b) accept detachable magazines

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

Restrictions on fundamental rights are allowed only when the restriction can be justified with a very good reason.

Therefore restrictions on full autos (restrictions that can be justified with a good reason) are allowed.

Therefore restrictions on pistol grips (restrictions that cannot be justified with a good reason) are forbidden.

 

On the contrary, many nations did. In glaring contradiction to most gunnie mythology one of the best examples was the Soviet Union, where students in many high schools were actually taught marksmanship as part ot the curriculum, and the residents of Siberia had a hunting tradition going back hundreds of years as well.

So. since people will still rob banks we should have no laws against bank robbery?