the ability for people to use a tool to make their weapons essentially automatic is not ok imo

i think hat should be outlawed personally

but honestly, i never owned a firearm, just your average joe/googling shit about guns online. i never heard about that "bump stock" thing until now, that shit is crazy

theyve been laughed off because they make you shoot terribly inaccurately. sadly no one connected the simple rate of fire to a large crowd until it happened. id only heard of them really, dont know anyone who'd use one.

You mean the gun control thread that makes no mention of why the amendment was first instituted?

Or the conspiracy thread? Or the active shooter thread? Which one is an appropriate place to discuss why the amendment exists?

Tired of the condescension.

i see.. interesting i just keep hearing those sounds from the las vegas shooting in my head (rate of gunfire) and just cannot imagine.. for 10 full minutes 1 human ahs the ability to do that much damage. just freaking crazy!

this is day one shit man. you're making kindergarten arguments. its too obvious for people to be bothered with, specific policy is a bit more conducive to conversation.

everyone knows that the 2nd amendment had intent written into it to prevent tyrannical governments, thats a 4th grade revolutionary war history lesson man.




i dont think anyone realize that a truck can be so weaponized until 80+ died in Nice. its good to hear that people are willing to bend on bump stocks, not even gun advocates have their back to keep them, only the "no gun control no matter what" crowd.

No, it's pretty spot on.

I have no choice but to write a seemingly simplistic analysis with a loose structure or people simply won't read it, much less comprehend it.

Everyone is not aware of the original intent of the 2nd amendment, "4th grade... lesson" or not.

The media has proven that people are very unaware of that truth, with everything from the most up-voted comments on the New York Times to Jimmy Kimmel making comments, such as why it is inane to have an assault rifle merely for hunting or home defense when in truth the right to possess that weapon has a much more serious value to the integrity of modern society's social contract and the free state it represents.

no. people deny that it's applicable because the govt has tanks, planes, and drones to come and kill us. everyone knows that intent was there unless they're an idiot. its really that simple, people feel that part of the intent has died off with militias.

So because the government is developing arms that are increasingly superior to that of the general populace, we should just go ahead and disarm everyone completely to finish the job?

The amendment says that militias have the right to bear arms. It does not say that any person has the right to bear arms regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.

How much more simple can it actually get?