Comment Deleted

0

I see more progressives with takes on guns than Republicans these days

3

Anonymous #1 7w

Tbh Republicans have pivoted to demonizing trans people now. And I believe in responsible and vetted gun ownership, not whatever tomfuckery is going on in Texas where you can walk into a store with a driver’s license and walk out with a firearm

8

Anonymous #2 7w

I wholeheartedly believe in TX gun laws over somewhere like MA. You want a government backed licensure and registration system thats stricter? Move to literally any other country.

-1

Anonymous #1 7w

Or, go through the system of actually removing the 2A from the bill of rights so that you are no longer held to that standard.

0

Anonymous #1 7w

Either way, don't go around telling me you support gun rights when you don't. You support gun privileges granted by the govt

-2

Anonymous #1 7w

How do you feel about red flag laws? Like if someone is going around saying he’s gonna shoot his ex and starts showing signs, are you okay with their firearms being temporarily confiscated until they get help?

18

Anonymous OP 7w

If you make actual death threats you should be arrested and charged, not just given psychiatric treatment. This is also a huge misrepresentation of what red flag laws actually are, and is a lot closer to a 5150.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Red flag laws literally just make the burden of proof to take away someone's guns lower, and make the seizure able to be completed without even a conviction of a crime.

1

Anonymous #1 7w

Ok just curious to see what your thinking was in more detail

1

Anonymous OP 7w

This isn't to say that the theoretical girlfriend killer should keep his guns either, I just don't think this is a particularly helpful way of getting that done. This could also be used in the opposite scenario of an abusive ex getting the victim's guns taken away and then killing them, since the burden of proof is lower.

1

Anonymous #1 7w

So people with violent criminal histories and mental health problems can get their hands on guns? Yeah no. That’s exactly what leads to mass shootings

4

Anonymous #2 7w

People with violent criminal histories and mental health issues that are known to cause violence in their specific circumstances should be in institutions.

-3

Anonymous #1 7w

No, I support reasonable gun rights. Unfettered access to guns is quite literally why we have the greatest number of mass shootings in the world and the number one cause of child death in our country is mass shootings. This theoretical argument about using guns to resist the government would be fantastic if the people championing it were actually sticking to their word in any way, given the immense federal overreach happening right now.

6

Anonymous #2 7w

Never even made that argument, MANPADs, drones and artillery are for defense against tyrannical government. Guns are for individual self defense.

-2

Anonymous #1 7w

“You don’t like this specific part of the country and want to change it? Then leave” dumbass argument. I care about my country therefore I want it to improve. Where exactly is the resistance to tyranny via firearms happening in our country?

2

Anonymous #2 7w

I actually gave you a perfectly valid option of admitting that you don't want gun rights and trying to get rid of the 2A.

-3

Anonymous #1 7w

Except the world doesn’t work ideally, and those people often slip through the cracks. And frankly poverty is a bigger driver of crime than mental health or baseline antisocial tendencies. There are so many loopholes for dangerous and irresponsible people to get their hands on guns; there is no solution besides eliminating civilian access to firearms, or vetting potential gun owners. I believe in 2A, I’m just not stupid about it

11

Anonymous #1 7w

Except literally nowhere in my comments did I make either of those points? I explicitly said I support reasonable gun access? Insane how much it takes to show conservatives that unvetted access to guns is an awful fucking idea.

6

Anonymous #1 7w

Well, that’s the argument for 2A, the right to bear arms to resist a tyrannical government. That’s literally the founding interpretation of 2A. Unless you’re saying you have a better interpretation that should supercede it?

9

Anonymous #2 6w

Again gun rights not gun privileges

-1

Anonymous #2 6w

It wasn't a "right to vote" when you had to pay a poll tax, same thing here

1

Anonymous #1 6w

So what I’m hearing… is that YOU want everyone to have the right to own a gun without the proper regulated laws put in place to mitigate gun violence? Is that your thought process?! 💀💀

4

Anonymous #2 6w

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the operative clause makes no explicit tie to the idea of resistance of a tyrannical government, therefore all lawful use of arms is protected.

4

Anonymous #4 6w

Yes, I would rather have gun rights than not. I don't think the only way to stop people from being violent is to take away their potential to be either

-1

Anonymous #2 6w

Especially when the explicit wording of the right is equivalent to "there shouldn't be any vetting for the ownership and carrying of arms"

0

Anonymous #1 6w

First off, never in my sentence did I state “no guns”, stop being willfully obtuse. You’re a college student. I stated, “regulated gun laws”, in which you’re clearly against. You’re incongruous mindset is astounding, so I’m not even going to engage in this conversation. You’re genuinely just a stain to America, and you need to be sterilized. Tired of overbreeding idiocracy.

4

Anonymous #4 6w

You can just say infringements instead of "regulated gun laws" or whatever

-1

Anonymous #4 6w

Also super unsurprising that you don't believe in bodily autonomy

-1

Anonymous #1 6w

I mean you just don’t live in reality. The entirety of society is just one giant compromise. We compromise on certain things to save people’s lives. That’s much more important to me than having a gun, and I say this as someone who owns a firearm. At the end of the day it comes down to priorities, and you don’t prioritize people being alive

1

Anonymous #3 6w

It’s hard when the GOP is actively slashing the social safety net and appeasing their fuhrer. This is not a “partisan” problem. My senator is currently introducing and trying to pass MediKids, which provides universal health insurance for young children, and I guarantee you the people opposing it will be Republicans.

1