This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

After an open admission like that, nothing more needs to actually be said. It is not about safety at all.

 

It's about both. Less guns more safety.

 

Factually incorrect. Fewer legally owned firearms does not in any way directly correlate and translate into a greater degree of safety. Violence and murder are not contingent upon the existence and accessibility of firearms in order to exist. It is nothing more than a false notion supported by those who do not wish to face the fact that violence is genetically hardwired into human DNA, or otherwise admit that it is the individual rather than the implement, as it would require the people to take personal responsibility for their own actions, rather than pretending that they are in some way victims of an outside influence that robbed them of the ability to make their own decisions.

 

I wouldn't know. Recognizing the world's realities as they are as opposed to living with a perpetual state of cranial/rectal inversion isn't "living paranoid"; but I understand and empathize with your inability to understand that.

Where I live is perfectly safe; at least partially because I live in a community where everyone recognizes the benefits of self-reliance and self-responsibility. Frankly, I wouldn't live anywhere else. But then, I agree with the philosophy behind preferring dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

Good for you. You've been very lucky in your life. I genuinely hope your luck never changes.

 

Yeah, you tell yourself that. Too bad what you want has zero legitimacy in this country.

No, America is about the protection of people's rights, freedoms, and political liberty. It's why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. It doesn't matter how many people vote to crush the rights of others, the Constitution protects them. As Benjamin Franklin once said: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

That's your opinion... and it's one not based in logic or factual justification.

 

People in those "blue/liberal" areas have rights too, as much as that offends you.

 

What would even be the point lol, would you really want to be the lone outcast with your fire arm as everyone in the town/county is looking at you funny, including the police?

Everyone agrees the 3A is outdated, as for the 2A, the first half clearly states the reason for being allowed a gun and second part allows for a gun for said reason

 

100% false.

 

I know in the past, states were able to expel people, if they still can, they should just expel the NRA agitators from the state so they can't sue the anti gun laws.

 

Frankly, I don't give an airborne fornication what other people think; especially when what they think is pure idiocy. Of course, I've been in law enforcement so I'm not worried about the police much either.

3A, maybe outdated. Your take on the 2nd is dead wrong. All you have to do is the most rudimentary exploration of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to recognize that.

....And you fall into the same trap of completely misrepresenting "the first half."

"Well regulated" when used in a martial sense means properly equipped and functioning as expected. A rifle that shoots directly to point of aim has sights that are defined as "well regulated". During the War of 1812 there were victories one in battles where militia handled the brunt of the fighting, and dispatches from the field praised their "fine regulation"; meaning their discipline and courage under fire, their esprit d'corps, and their skill at arms; NOT how well the government "regulated" them.

In short: I am armed and trained; ergo I am "well regulated." Either way, the 2nd Amendment is about a RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. It is NOT about a power of government.

 

Eh, police will always be suspicious of the one armed dude walking around

Not talking about well regulated, im talking about the clear use of militias by the states to defend their freedom from the federal government, European armies and native tribes. It was only recently thought of as an individual right by a small 5-4 vote.

Expelling agitators who have no purpose but to get laws stuck down just for the sake of making a profit even when said laws actually reduce violence, is not tyranny its, keeping order.

 

They'd never know I was armed. I carry every day, and no one ever sees it.

That's revisionist history (in other words, a lie). Once again, the most rudimentary reading of history and the words of the men who composed the Constitution prove it.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson (Emphasis Mine)

Gun laws have NEVER been documented to "reduce violence". Never. There isn't even one example you can cite of any place that enacted gun control and saw public safety improved. NOT ONE. Places with low rates of crime and violence now already had them before they enacted their gun bans, and in most places even there the rates of violence went up at least slightly in the years following enactment of the law.

 

Wow, just wow. Would you think the same about a GPS chip in your car? Of course it's unconstitutional, based on the 4th and 5th amendments and anti-gunner's favorite phrase "common sense."

 

Google knows where you are 24/7 lol GPS on phone

 

What about an anti-gun doctor who refuses to sign for anybody? It's ridiculous (and unconstitutional) to deny constitutional rights on the whims of a single person.

 

Nope, only when I allow them.

 

You think GPS just turns off?

 

The thing is, the real gun problem is not law-abiding gun owners. A 15 year old gangbanger is not going to do the above.

 

Really? It's shocking how easily you revert to dictator mode.

 

Well, if I'm not carrying any electronic devices, a GPS cannot track me (when my phone is sitting on the counter, and I'm elsewhere, it can't track me). The same goes when a phone is turned off or has no charge.

 

Right but if you keep your phone on you and turned on Google knows your location

 

Gun Control Laws Kill. That's why they are imposed.

 

Please show me proof of that. I know the capability is there in the OS (and I'm sure the government uses that), but if I never run a google product, that is impossible. Let's see evidence. Do you also believe that google spies on every conversation you have?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...g-cell-tower-data-android-os-firebase-privacy

 

That's a good idea. Particularly if you're white, live in flyover country and/or the south, and have a license to carry.