Anonymous #1 13w

Define what you mean by “gun reform”

-4

Anonymous #2 13w

Insurance, tests to prove you’re competent with a gun, background checks, more restrictions on heavier guns, basic shit

8

Anonymous #3 13w

The first two would be good, the third is already a thing, and what do you mean by “heavier guns”?

-2

Anonymous #2 13w

A father of small kids should not have an assault weapon. No matter how many feral hogs run into his yard

8

Anonymous #2 13w

This man and no man needs a fucking assault rifle

4

Anonymous #4 13w

I personally own 13 firearms that you would call an “assault rifle”. Do I NEED them? Probably not. Do I still want to have them for fun, self defense, competition, and to enable me to be capable of telling an overreaching Government to go F itself? ABSOLUTELY!!! Now don’t get me wrong, I do think that things need to be done to reduce firearm violence, however I also believe that the second amendment is key to upholding the Constitution and all of the rights it and its amendments grant.

-3

Anonymous #2 13w

Second amendment doesn’t say to go get a fuck ton of artillery that you don’t and never will need just to fucking kill people.

5

Anonymous #2 13w

I mean like automatic weapons, assault weapons, anything that isn’t for self defense or hunting. If it’s more effective in warfare you don’t need it in your house. Second amendment is about a *well regulated militia* and not just whoever wants whatever gun, we need common sense laws to actually protect people

10

Anonymous #3 13w

(Plus the gun related background checks are often not thorough enough, and there’s a loophole through private sales. Even more specifically, I think owning a gun should be a bit like owning a car, constantly being checked to make sure you have the updated papers and whatnot to prove you are safe with a gun)

4

Anonymous #3 13w

Constant checks, constant training recertification, mental health checks, all of it!

5

Anonymous #1 13w

100000%!! And high penalties for breaking those laws

5

Anonymous #3 13w

The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to allow for militias to be formed when needed. And yes there are loopholes in the background checks that need to be fixed. Also “assault weapon” is a phrase used by people who don’t actually understand firearms very well. Automatic firearms already require an additional licensing process and fee (which I have completed).

-3

Anonymous #2 13w

when will you need an automatic weapon to “defend yourself”? and having a weapon that can literally kill hundreds of people in the span of minutes for “fun” is demented. get a new hobby

6

Anonymous #5 13w

And psychological help.

5

Anonymous #5 13w

How is it demented to enjoy using firearms? It is literally my comfort hobby. It’s something I’ve known since I was very young.

-1

Anonymous #2 13w

Your comfort hobby is shooting assault weapons meant to kill people. That’s so normal of you and not at all a issue

4

Anonymous #2 13w

Being ready to kill a bunch of people is NOT a fucking comfort hobby, it’s a derangement.

4

Anonymous #4 13w

Swords were meant to kill people, yet I bet if I practiced sword fighting as a comfort hobby I bet you wouldn’t have an issue

0

Anonymous #1 13w

Using firearms doesn’t require you being ready to kill. It can simply be a fun thing to do. Like skydiving, exercising or paintball.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

sword fighting swords typically aren’t actually sharp/dangerous + this is a false equivalence, swords can’t kill hundreds in minutes

7

Anonymous #5 13w

For sword fighting we use dull for training against our fellow people and sharp for everything else. Are you saying I can’t enjoy a hobby simply because it could potentially be used to inflict mass casualties?

-2

Anonymous #2 13w

your point does not negate that it’s a false equivalence. and yeah, i am. we should not have access to those weapons

7

Anonymous #2 13w

You don’t need a million fucking guns, ever, for any reason, period.

3

Anonymous #5 13w

If you think we shouldn’t have access to firearms because of what they could do in the wrong hands then are you against chemistry and electrical engineering as well? Cause if I for whatever reason ever wanted to take out a lot of people I wouldn’t use a firearm. A firearm is a precision weapon. Chemistry and electrical engineering on the other hand, just using the knowledge I obtained in high school, could be used to take out far more people and I wouldn’t even need to be in the same city.

-2

Anonymous #4 13w

What do you mean by assault weapon? An automatic weapon, high capacity magazines, high calibers, and/or high rate of fires? I don't even own a gun but the term is flawed imo

-1

Anonymous #1 13w

How do u suppose having more than one gun is MORE dangerous than just having one? If some1 really wanted to cause harm, just 1 gun would suffice. Its like claiming having more than 1 car is polluting the climate more when there are totally valid reasons for having multiple. I don't even own a gun but there are much better solutions for gun violence than limiting the amount of guns. Ex: Switzerland issues a gun to every man in the country (w/ mandatory service)

-2

Anonymous #6 13w

If u already determine someone is capable of owning a firearm then the amount of guns they own should not matter. Ur point abt the ability to kill a lot of ppl is not supported by the 2nd amendment. And there are unfortunately plenty of other ways to murder mass amounts of people besides guns

-2

Anonymous #6 13w

Yes however guns are the easiest and most accessible way to kill a lot of people very fast. I agree that you can have as many guns as you want, but they shouldn’t be automatic, semi-automatic, or anything designed for warfare. If you want a hundred pistols be my guest

2

Anonymous #3 13w

The majority of “assault weapons” in the US were specifically designed for civilian use, not warfare.

0

Anonymous #2 13w

funny comparison you make there, because chemistry and electrical engineering are done by professionals, not random people who go into walmart and pick up supplies.

5

Anonymous #3 13w

I think that's a poor argument. Most pistols are semi auto. Your limitations are not pragmatic and would only allow for bolt rifles, pump shotguns, and single action pistols (essentially 100+ year old tech). That's against the purpose of the 2A. Guns are a tool that most people don't want to use, but sometimes they're called for. In an ideal world, no one would be in a situation where they would need one, but that's not attainable. A better solution is to limit their accessibility not capability

0

Anonymous #6 13w

yeah when do you think the 2A was written?

2

Anonymous #5 13w

If your point is that they couldn’t have conceived what weapons are today then your point in null since they had already been trying to design fully automatic firearms at the time, they were just not quite there technologically yet.

0

Anonymous #5 13w

As I said in my previous message it can be done with knowledge that you should have learned in high school, it doesn’t need a professional. And all of the supplies needed can be purchased at a Walmart or some other common store.

0