contrails12

and the odds of being in a situation requiring certain types of weapons are infinitesimally small yet here we are.

you’ll respond that it’s your right.

I’ll say it’s not an unlimited right, what should you be allowed to own nukes?

I’ll also point out that we also have a right to LIFE, liberty, etc. and people wanting extreme liberties to own firearms is infringing upon others rights.

Itsajob

We’re going to need to agree to disagree. Being that 99.9999999% or what ever the actual percentage of people who own guns that some would like to ban are law abiding citizens who simply enjoy a day at the range, I would never vote to restrict their liberty to save a small number of lives, even if it was mine or a loved one. If we are going to reduce liberty in the name of saving lives, there are bigger fish to fry.

Peacock

My guns haven’t done anything to infringe on your rights, and I don’t plan on allowing you to infringe on mine.

rickair7777

There's no constitutional right to bear nukes (or tanks or jet planes). But there is a crystal clear precedent for fire-arms.

Anyone who attempts to mess with your right to life, feel free to deal it as you see fit. But I'm not that guy, and I DO have a constitutional right to bear arms. I don't get why everyone is so hell-bent on working around the freakin' constitution... if you don't like it, there's a process to change it. Not enough support? Maybe there's a reason for that.

ReadOnly7

I bet you don’t think drugs should be legalized.

side note....I own a variety of guns, including a “black rifle” with a 30-round magazine. But I also totally see qotsa’s viewpoint, and the gun crowd isn’t very good at seeing outside their own perspective.

SonicFlyer

Fortunately we don't live in a democracy where our rights are subject to the whims of the majority.

SaintNick

Every gun on earth that isn’t a pump action shotgun, bolt action rifle or black powdered rifle is a semi automatic gun. It doesn’t matter how small my magazines (not clips) are I can still reload any handgun in under 2 seconds ( probably a second) and I’m not that crazy of a shooter. I like guns, I usually have a gun on me at all times. The world around us is crazy and I only care about my family and my
self. I’m going to protect them at all cost and I have many different types of guns for every different type of situation there is. I honestly don’t have a ton of guns, most of mine are my hunting guns but I’m sorry just because an armalite rifle (not assault rifle) is black and scary doesn’t mean it should be banned. If you showed a “common sense” gun laws wanting person two guns, the infamous ar15 and a ruger mini 14 (same gun but with a brown stock) they would ban the ar but leave the mini 14 alone.

SonicFlyer

No, there isn't. Rights don't have limits.

Rights DO have responsibilities though.

The right to free speech means you have the responsibility not to use that speech irresponsibly where others get hurt (libel/slander, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater).

Same with firearms. The right to keep and bear arms comes with a responsibility that you know how to property use those arms and that you don't misuse them or allow them to be misused.

SonicFlyer

Like most people you fail to understand the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Every citizen is part of the militia who can be called up to defend their country if needed. Therefore citizens need weapons that are military-grade. Therefore the average law abiding American should be able to posses and carry whatever weapons the average soldier carries (not nukes obviously).

Itsajob

I bet that you would be wrong. Used for personal entertainment, protection (guns), or self destruction (both), I don’t have a problem with either. If you use a gun for anything other than recreation or actual self defense, or if you consume drugs or alcohol and then endanger others by something like driving, you should suffer extreme consequences.