On a printed page as the Internet and video is what was around when the 1st amends was adopted.

And it's not really that many people, if you catch my drift.

By the bill of rights and the constitution are.

of printing presses/the internet and muskets/modern guns a disingenuous joke and you know it.

Most 2nd amendment supporters aren't even purists, it's just about protecting their toys aka guns at at all costs. Why are so many knives illegal for example?

I suppose you like fenced in free speech zones

dynamic is really the same between muskets and guns is horsepoop. Saying it's a significantly different dynamic from newspapers and the internet is nonsense.

all to frequently!

"Good guy with guns" have never once been able to prevent a massacre, no matter the NRA cant, it just ensures more innocent people are killed. Name me one mass killing ever prevented by a person with a gun in opposition to the would be killer. I've never heard of it and don't think it exists because it's so illogical.

Bases and posts are gun free zones right? The only ones that have weapons are the police and soldiers at the range only. The soldiers are cleared of ammo when they clear the range.

there's any circuits in them to blow.

That's what it takes to reload a musket.

If you don't think a determined killer can do some serious damage, then you are delusional.

But in your world, even the musket would be banned and confiscated.

Oh, and the shooter could carry two handguns, a sword, and a knife. Body count triples.

I'll take my chances with that over a high capacity weapon.

Will guns ever save more lives than they take? Ever?

The whole sword or rocks or stones or whatever weapon argument doesn't make sense. It's just jibberish. There is no doubt in anyone's mind which kind of weapon can do more damage to more people. And what about the future? What new sorts of things will come out to kill ever more people? It can go on and on.

This fear of the government taking away everyone's hunting rifle is nonsense as well. Just another rightwing fear tactic.

Yes, all guns are dangerous, no doubt about that at all. High capacity magazines just mean MORE dead bodies.

No one has said all guns must be taken, why do you gun lovers always go there when you know it's a total untruth? All guns registered, that's sane, 100% background checks, all guns must have locks and be locked up in a safe and unloaded, also no more than 2 gun purchases per year. Those are sensible gun laws and would reduce some of the violence, the stockpiling of arsenals. Of course, stopping terrorists from buying guns is change #1, but that could be accomplished with the background checks.

There are dozens of members of the DU I have clashed with over the years that want a 100%, door to door confiscation. If you haven't met them, consider yourself lucky. They do exist. They exist here, and they advocate for exactly that.

High Capacity Magazines: What a crock of shit. Having a high capacity magazine is not that much of an advantage, especially if it is a cheap knock off, or a drum (like Aurora - that worked against the shooter.) Even speed loaders on a 6 shot revolver can fire of dozens of shots in a minute. The magazines aren't the problem. Banning them had absolutely no affect during the AWB. It's a dumb argument. Do better.

All Guns Registered: Why? What possible benefit can a national registry of guns have? The government knowing who has guns is a system made for abuse. Having a gun registry wouldn't have stopped one single shooting. Period. The fact that you even consider a registry for a constitutional right tells me a lot about you.

All Guns Must Be Locked: Again, why? What is it about you gun control advocates that is willing to infringe on a constitutional right "for the greater good?" I understand the situation in my own home. I am perfectly competent to determine whether or not my children or spouse are in danger. That is not your right to dictate. Adam Lanza's mother locked up her guns. How did that turn out?

No more than 2 guns a year: Again, why? If a criminal wants to amass an arsenal they can and will use straw purchases. You are only placing restrictions on law abiding citizens. There are perfectly reasonable needs for more than 2 firearms in a year. In 2012 I bought 3 firearms in 6 months. Each for a different reason and purpose. I haven't had to purchase one since, but under your utopia, I would have had to make a choice to control the ballooning animal population, or have a firearm for protection. That is not your place (or the place of the government) to dictate.

Background checks: Epic and total fail. There is absolutely no evidence that expanding background checks would have prevented any mass shooting in recent history. Shooters have passed the background checks, used straw purchases, or stolen the firearms in every single case. Even Dylan Roof passed a background check because the NCICS f'd up and failed to do their jobs. Background checks are helpful, sure, but they aren't a solution, at all.

Stop trying to take away freedoms of free American citizens. This right is no different than abortion rights (which we would never tolerate an arbitrary restriction upon) freedom of the press (which we would never tolerate an arbitrary restriction upon) or personal privacy (which we refuse to tolerate an arbitrary violation of).

There is a simple solution to this; repeal the second amendment. If you want to burden free American citizens with restrictions on their constitutional rights, organize a repeal of the second amendment. Get the votes and make it happen. Surely, with all of the popular support for such an action, it should be a simple act to get 38 states to support such a repeal.

Good luck!

But if guns are limited, you'd have to have LOTS of straw men to buy all the guns that the couple in San Bernardino had. It's just common sense. None of the mas killers have used others to buy the guns.

Guns locked, seriously you are against this? You think it's OK how children kill/injure themselves and others almost daily from parents not having guns locked and not locked up? That's craziness.

During AWB mass killings weren't as common, so you try harder. My point is real and would make a difference in lives lost. Guess that doesn't matter to you?

Registry would help prevent the mass purchases. Simple.

Wrong about background checks. Might have prevented San Bernardino since they were being watched by FBI. Would have prevented the killing at the Virginia College of a guy being treated for mental issues and that's just one I'm sure of, there are most likely others.

I would like the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment overhauled. Roe v Wade has millions of stupid unnecessary restrictions, guns need necessary controls. I do work for that by supporting candidates that will get us there through their SCOTUS picks. People would still have the ability to have hunting guns and hand guns, but not an arsenal.

That AR platform rifle sales skyrocketed DURING the AWB. Take the bayonet lug or flash hider off and guess what, no longer an assault weapon. Just like those two AR pattern weapons in SB were not assault weapons as California still has an assault weapons ban.

I hear the same NRA talking points from every gun enthusiast I talk to. That's no accident.

This fear of taking the guns away has been the most successful idea the NRA ever developed. It's very much an anti-government sort of thinking. High capacity mags? Why? For what purpose? To kill other human beings? To do it efficiently in large numbers? To wage this fantasy war against the government that all the rightwingers seem to be waiting for someday?

I just find that sort of thinking insane.

As for straw purchases--yes--increase penalties for that, for sure. Look for other solutions but don't just open the floodgates for anyone to have any sort of weapon they want under the banner of "arms".

The point of the initial video is that the founding fathers never envisioned the type of weapons available today.

That scares me much more than the government coming for your guns.

It's fear and anger that drives this stuff.

You can't prove that expanded background checks would not stop someone. You just can't prove what a future legislation would do. The current form obviously isn't enough.

And the most ridiculous argument of all---if a criminal wants a gun--he'll get it. Maybe--maybe not.

But why have any laws? If someone wants to rob you, they will.

Why have clean water laws? If someone wants to pollute, they will.

Isn't that their right?

It's absurd and I don't buy any of it.

can't go to a fast food restaurant without a piece? YOU'RE A COWARD.

But nice try.

IT NEEDS TO BE RESEARCHED WHY THERE ARE SO MANY FUCKING COWARDS and WHY we are forced to KOWTOW to those FUCKING COWARDS. Those of us who manage to live our entire lives without being armed are SICK of assholes who refuse to even admit we have a PROBLEM.

Fearful of a statistical anomoly that while terrible, is unlikely.

You are not going to get shot.

You have no reason to be afraid.

Stop being afraid.

*SOME* of us care about more than just OURSELVES

gawd, that sentiment speaks VOLUMES about where you are coming from

ugh

I just IM'd your statement to someone in Australia and he replied, OMG that is sad

yes it is

*DONE HERE*

It happens multiple times a day here on DU

Just emailed it to everyone I know.... even the wing-nuts!
Can't wait for their replies