Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
It's staggering they keep pushing against the only natural rights that's been codified with "shall not be infringed".
Seems pretty clear that all laws limiting anything that is considered a weapon would be unconstitutional.
And before all the BS arguments flow in:
Automatic weapons existed when the constitution was written.
Cannon are still legally owned.
At the time the Constitution writing, entire ships with rows of cannon were in private possession.
Do you really think the framers were stupid and couldn't forsee the development of greater and greater weapons? Why else would they write it this way, considering they'd just been attacked by their own King.
If you disagree with any Thin I've said, I can only think you haven't read enough of the history of the time, to understand they didn't see themselves as rebels (that's a label we've applied), but as loyal subjects of the crown and were being treated like second-class citizens.
What is the number one cause of death for U.S. children right now? It's gun deaths.
The U.S. has a gun problem. That's why there is pushback. We need gun control because the current situation is not working, and is leading to unnecessary deaths.
Didn't you get corrected multiple times at this point? I feel like you've had repeated conversations, and you somehow always forget them the next day. It's not just guns either, it's a lot of things.
"Corrected"
You guys don't seem to understand that gun deaths are still deaths whether suicide or homicide. It's bad either way.
If you think the gun debate is too repetitive, feel free to instead post something interesting.
And you don't seem to understand that there's no valid reason based in facts to care specifically about "gun deaths", no matter how many times you're corrected. Don't let facts get in the way of your feelings pal
The same goes for any kind of deaths when you put it like that. Unlike you, I care when people die.
Tell me, what is the homicide rate in the U.S. versus your average European country? How many guns does your average European country have in comparison to the U.S.?
Can you answer me that?
You know damn well the answers to those questions.
Europe has lower death rates, lower gun ownership rates, and generally less militarized/better trained police. And it isn't a coincidence.
Woooosh
"Children are dying"
"Works fine for me"
Really?
No, it's negligence and malice.
Not even a hint of irony.
I would recommend that you distance yourself from right wing media. It will rot your brain out.
I'm not saying you have a rotted brain, im not attacking you. But nothing but right wing media consumption will do it. I've been there.
I don't know how else to tell you that you have thoroughly misunderstood the situation beyond repair. You need to take a step back from your sources of bias and return to reality.
What you've said is so ridiculous that I don't feel the need to make a point. You also have a strange understanding of what counts as emotional.
We don't agree on a lot but I'm forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15's and the like.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.
I'm glad we can agree that the second amendment covers fully automatic, burst fire, and high caliber weapons and ammo.
I'm being facetious with the guy saying that weapons that would be valuable in civil defense should be fair game. Because should it actually come down to a matter of civil defense, you can bet your ass that truck mounted .50 calibers and larger anti-anor and anti-vehicle weapons are on the table.
Then why was "arms", a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside "shall not be infringed"? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
Might as well include tactical nukes in "arms".
Source on this?
No it isn't. I want an actual source, not just some random article with the equivalent of "dude, trust me" as it's source. Beyond that, the article doesn't make the claim you're making, which is that the 2nd amendment excludes some weapons. Just that it definitely does include modern select fire rifles and handguns.