Anonymous #1 16w

Weapons don't murder, murder requires intent and weapons are inanimate

-2

Anonymous OP 16w

The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. That’s what they’re designed to do. Fighting this hard to keep the indicated that you want to inflict harm on others.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

Not true, a firearm's purpose is to propel a projectile out a tube. It just so happens that the speed at which this occurs causes the projectile to be deadly

-2

Anonymous #1 16w

Ok what are you supposed to do when someone goes into your house and tries to kill you? “Nooo don’t do that.” There are idiots out there that only listen to violence. That’s their only language.

1

Anonymous #2 16w

Shoot em

0

Anonymous OP 16w

I know. I’m saying if guns were available. Bc if they weren’t I’d be in danger. You need a gun bc some people are gonna do whatever they want and they don’t care if they kill someone or not.

1

Anonymous #2 16w

Oh fair I thought you were replying to me for some reason, I think the same thing applies to arms in general although guns are a pretty effective small arm so they make a good specific example

-1

Anonymous #2 16w

lol this is a made up fantasy that never happens. When was the last time you someone broke into your home while you were there?

5

Anonymous #1 16w

Happened twice but I just maced the shit out of em so I didn't have to shoot them

0

Anonymous #1 16w

Your opinion doesn’t matter. You actually think people don’t do that and that never happens. You don’t think criminals exist.

4

Anonymous OP 16w

so you admit that you don’t have to take someone’s life nor seriously injure/disable someone using a firearm if they break into your home. great! that’s my point. it’s the shoot-first-think-later mindset Americans have that gets Kohen Wiley killed, Tamir Rice killed, and even Ryan Whittaker killed. Granted, those were all cops who were supposed to be trained to know better. How can we expect civilians with ZERO training or skills required prior to owning a gun to be safer than trained LEOs?

5

Anonymous #3 16w

I don’t care about ownership. I care about qualifications to achieve ownership. It is a right, but you should have to show that you are capable of protecting yourself AND your community. Training and classes should be mandatory and any/all fees go toward local VA or PD which will ideally provide instructors to teach those trainings (safe handling, cleaning, load/reload, firing range, etc.). It’s inconvenient but that’s ALL it is, your rights are not infringed by being more knowledgeable.

3

Anonymous #3 16w

Not always but you may have to, and it's a lot better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it in a life or death scenario. Also there is no qualification, defending yourself with the lawful possession of arms is your right. There may be disqualifications, such as criminality or debilitating mental health conditions, but the assumed state is that you qualify until its proven that you fit one of these disqualifiers

0

Anonymous #3 16w

I do believe greater accessibility to firearms education will foster a healthier and more educated gun culture, but to use this as a backdoor avenue for more state control is slimy.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

It also will not foster the same healthier and more educated culture, as people tend to purposefully disregard information the government shoves down their throats, regardless of its truthfulness or helpfulness.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

We already do this with the required Hunter’s safety programs for kids once they are of hunting age, where they learn safety, use of firearm, which firearms for which game species, and best practices. We also do slightly this for getting registered to vote, considering all high schools nationwide provide a civics/economics course as a requirement of high school class. 🤷🏼‍♀️ i just don’t love the fact that my mom could walk in & out of a store with a pistol same-day knowing nothing about safety.

3

Anonymous #3 16w

Hunting safety is different than being able to use a gun to defend yourself and others. There is no right to access managed public resources like roads or wildlife thats a privilege, but there is a right to keep and bear arms which protects all lawful use of firearms

0

Anonymous #3 16w

So in any place where the game you're hunting is not managed as a public resource (notable examples are small game and/or predators in a lot of areas), hunting licenses are generally not required and hunting rules if at all applicable are more lax

0

Anonymous #2 16w

lol I never said criminals don’t exist. I said guns are significantly more likely to harm someone you care about than protect you against crime

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Actually, a lot of Native reservations have rights to resources like fishing before DNR does. Also, you absolutely have the right to public access areas such as sidewalks, public parks, and government buildings. That’s why you see 1A auditors doing that all the time. You’re allowed to walk through a state park, which doesn’t allow hunting, with your firearms to cut through and access the state game area which allows hunting.

2

Anonymous OP 15w

Yeah I’d say that’s a fair point, and that rural municipalities can determine level of risk management for firearm safety with like written exams instead or even just fill out applications lol. Nothing really intrusive or excessive, especially more than we already have with state IDs, voting IDs, or a 2-hr large vehicle training at a park system or cemetery or maybe First Aid training. It’d just be nice to KNOW all gun owners are accountable people willing to do the bare minimum for safety. :/

2

Anonymous #3 15w

Remind me where it says "your rights stop where my bureaucracy ends", cause I'm pretty sure it actually says "shall not be infringed"

-1

Anonymous OP 15w

All rights are inherently limited. Free speech ends when your speech causes direct harm to others. Your right to a gun ends when you have proven you can’t be trusted with a gun.

3

Anonymous OP 15w

Explain to me why some people are not eligible to vote, despite their citizenship and it being their right to do so. It may answer your question to why some people are not eligible to own firearms, even without my proposed legislation...

3

Anonymous #1 15w

Yeah, the limitation of the 2nd is that you cannot infringe it, thats why its in the negative right section

0

Anonymous OP 15w

But it’s “infringed” every day for logical reasons to protect the masses. Plenty of underage people do not have the right to own a firearm. Felons do not have the right to own or carry a firearm in many states. Dementia patients often have their firearms confiscated or relocated from their homes. Incarcerated persons also have their right to vote revoked during their sentence btw. That was an answer you could’ve given.

4

Anonymous #3 15w

Everyone you just listed loses their rights as a result of their own actions or medical conditions, and its certainly not just gun rights. Nobody on that list can even choose where to live besides maybe an underage person who gets emancipated

0

Anonymous #3 15w

And yeah, it's a lot more reasonable to take away rights from criminals and people with debilitating mental disorders than doing so to everyone because of the possibility someone might commit a crime.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

I also have the right to get a job without discrimination against me, but that doesn’t mean I’m entitled to any and all jobs. If I am not qualified and I do not fill out the application or have proper documentation, I don’t get the job at that place. I still have a right to work, but I need to be qualified to do the job. Same with voting, I just have to register to vote with the proper documentation prior to doing so. I want something akin to that prior to firearm ownership, with education too.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

Well yeah, a job is different because you need someone else's consent. Who else do I need to consent to my gun rights? The government? 🤣

0

Anonymous #3 15w

Tell you what, when Sheriff's Deputies and Army Soldiers start asking me permission to carry or have a gun, I'll return the favor.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

I think you know I was using that concept of right to work as an analogy, not as an exact framework. We’re clearly suffering as a country with gun violence as a normalcy, and doing nothing has allowed it to become #1 cause of death for youth in America. We can do bare minimum inconveniences to protect our people. Not doing so shows that we don’t give a fuck to protect our people, let alone children. School shooting protection tech (NOT prevention, mind you) has become a billion-dollar industry…

0

Anonymous #3 15w

I understand that, I'm saying the analogy doesn't work because gun rights do not require another's consent.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Are you capable of a good faith conversation with intent to reach a mutual consensus on the subject? Or do you just want to argue for the sake of arguing? I’ve gathered the latter, from the last three comments… Truthfully, I don’t think you care about this political paradigm nor the resolution of these concerns at all.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

Yeah, are you? We can't have a good faith conversation if I can't call out analogies that illustrate the situation poorly

0

Anonymous OP 15w

I agree it wasn’t an exact perfect analogy, which is why I didn’t equate the employer to the gov’t. It is also why i followed it up with the right to vote and I think it’d be productive if we’d acknowledge that parallel option as well. I’m all for the 2A but we need extensive foresight with that right as with that right comes great responsibility. Voting does too and, in that particular department, we provide that responsibility via minimum education requirements in grades 9-11.

0

Anonymous #3 15w

If you were "all for the 2A" you would understand that it literally means minimal government control

-1

Anonymous OP 15w

Minimal doesn’t mean nonexistent

1

Anonymous #1 15w

If they were non existent we would be talking about putting some in place rather than expanding the pre existing ones

1

Anonymous OP 15w

the solution is definitely not doing nothing! any regulations do not eviscerate the 2A. if anything, it strengthens it!! ensuring that our population is protected via training, education on common sense safety protocols, and even how to disarm an armed assailant would be LOADS helpful if we ever did need to rise up against a military. at this point, the public has no chance against trained military personnel even if we DID have the same caliber of weaponry bc we’re untrained! 🤦🏼‍♀️

3

Anonymous OP 15w

regulations about firearm safety training prior to possession IS nonexistent and funny enough, I AM talking about putting something in place instead of expanding existing regulations for shit like “gun-free zones” that are rendered useless without any kind of preemptive actions toward safety, accountability, and security of firearms among citizens. I’m happy to have a parent with a gun at a playground if I KNOW they are trained on proper scene assessment, accuracy, and prevention of casualties.

4

Anonymous #3 15w

That's not a regulation on how firearms are kept and beared, that's a regulation on who may do so without even reasonable suspicion to deny these people their rights.

0

Anonymous #3 15w

A regulation on who may have access to their rights without just cause to force people to forfeit them is fundamentally an infringement on a right.

0

Anonymous #3 15w

What specific practices in firearms handling or ownership do you think owners should be held more accountable for? Restricting those actually would be a restriction on how arms are kept and beared.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Everything that comes to my mind is already covered by law, you're already liable for every bullet that comes out of your gun, people can press ag assault charges against you if you're threatening them while carrying, even if you don't show them the gun. There are plenty of states completely hostile to the idea of self defense, and some US territories won't even let you carry altogether unless you're a cop.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

The only people denying them of their rights would be themselves by simply not completing the registration (akin to voter’s registration) or fulfilling the safety training and availing themselves to learn more about the joy of owning a firearm, in addition to their rights and even history of 2A too. That’d be awesome, right? I’d take the training even without intent to buy a gun right after tbh. It’s so simple and bare minimum that it’s a one-time inconvenience…

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Actually, I’d love it if we *actually* were liable for every bullet that comes out of a a gun. Take Germany for example; we should have insurances required for owning a gun akin to insurance for owning a vehicle (but ofc with its own accommodations).

1

Anonymous #3 15w

You are liable for every bullet that comes out of your gun, yet you don't love it. Odd.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

You just aren't required to prop up insurance industries for doing it. How much is progressive giving you?

1

Anonymous #3 15w

Also, yes, setting the standard to be denial until you fulfill the government's demands is in fact an infringement on the 2A. There's no precedent saying you can remove people's rights for simply existing.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

It's the same as if I said you need to pass some arbitrary civics test, own land, etc to vote. Categorical discrimination without any evidence to justify the disenfranchisement, and you are too afraid to call it disenfranchisement at all.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

Like seriously, do anti gunners study the Jim Crow era Southern USA policy modus operandi to base their modern day agenda on?

0

Anonymous OP 15w

Insurance companies should not be a heavily lucrative industry with profits through the roof. Again, actual applicable insurances like Germany had would be ideal but surely you didn’t read that international example to be more knowledgeable for a rebuttal.

3

Anonymous #3 15w

We don't live in Germany, that's not how it's going to work in real life and we both know that.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

it’s not passing a test. it’s just doing the training and you have the training. It’s like a First Aid training course. Have you taken one of those? Tbh it’d be nice if gun owners had to take that course too so they learn how to apply a tourniquet properly too.

2

Anonymous #3 15w

Offer it as a high school class if you want more people to do it, thats when I took stop the bleed.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

We have groups that will probably make it their sole duty to ensure nobody is rejected from registering their firearms, just like there is for voting rights. Again, you are coming at this very pointed instead of seeking understanding and finding the middle meeting ground here since we both agreed that doing nothing is not an option. I’ve met you in the middle and we’ve been on the same side a few times, but you keep making negative connotations or assumptions of my position.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

I agree that I'm being very pointed against you, but I disagree in that giving the government the power to choose who can access their rights arbitrarily isn't middle ground

1

Anonymous #3 15w

That's one of the anti gun lobby's goal that I am most against, and probably is the one I am most against if you exclude the dissolution of gun rights in their entirety, it literally couldn't be further from the idea of middle ground.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

yeah I mentioned how Civics/Econ is a high school class that then equips someone to register to vote. obviously not all gun owners are in high school right now, so we’ll need to configure a way for them to take similar trainings with evidently higher levels of adult learning theory applied ofc. (i’m actually a grad student for education, but mainly museums. local place has a real but inoperable chautchat!)

1

Anonymous #3 15w

I'd be glad if the government wants to do free concealed carry/safe handling classes in the same style as USCCA, but the second they try and require it I'm not going to comply any further

1

Anonymous OP 15w

you’re making assumptions of this being a poll tax, or my failed job application analogy where someone has to make that approval. it’s the same as it is now, including the background check etc., with one more productive, professional, and locally supported educational program prior to walking in the door to buy your first firearm at age 18 or whatever ownership age. Obv as adults, we’d just ask gunowners to maybe take it within a decade, provide reference from local PD, military ID, or some shit

1

Anonymous #3 15w

I honestly don't see the benefit of doing that versus just making the information so available it's hard to ignore, but I do see a detriment. You're going to be disenfranchising people by not making it free, which will breed resentment towards whats supposed to just be a beneficial information campaign.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

There are like 4 rules to firearms safety, why not just put them on blast on advertisements? Every time you would have got a Kalshi ad before, it can be "Know your target and whats beyond it, keep your finger off the trigger, only point a gun at something you want to destroy, assume every gun is loaded"

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Well we all know it absolutely can be free if like $2M was pulled from the billions toward other random useless stuff that doesn’t help Americans but oligarchs and corporate bastards who deserve tar & feathers, but that’s another conversation i’m sure we don’t really need to have rn. There is a major difference between advertising and formal education/training.

6

Anonymous #3 15w

A formal and required class would cost billions even if the cost to the government per enrollment was like $10, advertising is much lower in price and plenty effective at drilling people on the 4 sentences we would want them to remember.

0

Anonymous #3 15w

To pull this up to the level that I assume you'd want (live fire training, medical training, de-escalation training) would be bare minimum $1000 per enrollment, likely a lot more looking at how much these type of classes cost on the civilian market, making the total price hundreds of billions if required and funded by government. I wouldn't really mind this money being pulled from our "infinite sandbox wars" fund but to say it'd cost an insignificant amount of money to the country is false.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

It'd literally be such a huge cost that less than a majority percentage of it being spent elsewhere could theoretically end world hunger, buy a small nation, and fund a mission to the moon.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

This wouldn’t be the level of training that LEOs get so it wouldn’t cost municipalities that much. Even if the $10 cost was shifted toward the owner, it can be applied toward school budgets, PDs, or VA hospitals. If we include basic firearm safety, rights, & history in high school (like drivers training or civics/econ), we’d need less adult learning courses. To make up for the gap of current adult owners willing to learn, we can find ways of doing that.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

It’d be really nice if you’d not hyperbolize every point that I’m making. It’d also be nice if you did not retrofit your preconceived conclusion in response to everything I suggest. Again, we both agreed doing nothing is not an option. Shooting down every single one of my very reasonable and practical suggestions, pun intended, isn’t getting us anywhere. You seem to continually be suggesting we do nothing, although we agreed that was the wrong choice, because doing something is too much…?

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Again, as a grad student seeking a second grad degree in Education, I am telling you that “drilling people on 4 sentences we want them to remember” is not actually learning, let alone teaching. It’s especially not an option in adult learning spaces!

1

Anonymous #3 15w

$10 is probably how much it'd cost the government to drill you on 4 sentences, I don't think thats any type of realistic estimate for what you want people to gain from it.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

I think we should do something, I also think hundreds of billions of dollars being spent by the government on a one time class is ludicrous, and it'd be even more insane to pass that cost onto every citizen just for them to be able to access their rights.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

Also as to the "this wouldn't be the level of training that LEOs get" point, it'd still be $1000 if it included live fire, medical training, and de-escalation. Police academy tuition is usually ~5x this.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

In my area, a First Aid/CPR course is ~$110 and an all-day entry for ages 16+ is $4 at the DNR staffed firing ranges (free under age 15). I think a logical course plan could probably cost municipalities ~$115 per gun owner? Idk I’m not a policy maker rn, but we can personalize the course to cater First Aid specifically to gunshot wounds in addition to general safety. DNR Outdoor Skills Academy is usually $20-$50 per student depending on the course.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

I’m coming at this from my prof. experience of budgeting for organizations, museum events, and collegiate education programs + my academic qualifications in Curriculum/Instruction & EdTech. I know that it’s possible to consider your concerns and directly address them in the results, and we CAN find a common ground solution. Tbh, I think this conversation is great aside from the consistent negation on your end. It’d be better to acknowledge our common ground more often though.

1

Anonymous #3 15w

Again, I’m suggesting this be paid for by municipalities which may cost tax payers less than $5 in their property taxes or whatever. Maybe that tax revenue also goes to the local LEOs budget in PDs or even the DNR firing ranges directly (fat chance tho lol nobody wants to fund the DNR sadly). I agree I do NOT want it to be a wall for people unable to hurdle and it won’t be. We can directly address those concerns once legislation is on the table.

4