I did think that since it's a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn't matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.
It's a deliberate misinterpretation.
"IMPOSSIBLE" yes. Without killing a fundamental right which built the nation it is impossible. If there's the political will to do it then ces't la vie, but my job, and the job of others who care and understand the situation is to call out the politicians hiding their goal of banning guns behind euphemisms and dog whistles. If they can repeal the 2nd then fucking do it. If not then fuck off on more gun control. That's the only thing I don't like about most Democrat candidates. I agree with most everything else. It still makes it difficult to support them though.
My dude, it's already illegal for criminals to use guns and crime, so what is another law going to do? Felons cannot own guns and many criminals are felons but a lot of them still find guns. What is a law going to change about that? Death by suicide is a primarily male problem. Are we going to ban men? Just because somebody used a gun to kill themselves doesn't mean they were not going to do it in some other way.
The mask is used by politicians trying to hide banning all guns as sensible gun control. I'm just stating that you are telling the truth the politicians will not.
I don't know if you've ever watched The Simpsons but that is a quote from a reactionary trying to get what they want with no real reason so they say it's for the kids. It has been a very successful political tool. Just think of cispa and other various internet censorship and spying tools.
Suicide and gang wars are the source of you're actually interested.
Look at your source and sort by per capita statistics, because no shit a 350 million population country will have high total stats in any number of things while having lower per capita.
Every single one.
When a nuclear bomb becomes something a regular person can make without a nation-state worth of backing let me know them we can worry about that.
As far as driving goes it has never been a right guaranteed by the constitution. Maybe they'd have a point if it was.
If you actually look at the statistics you wouldn't. Just like you're extremely unlikely to get measles but we do innoculate ourselves. The innoculation to gun crime is a lead innoculation for those commiting it. Criminals don't stop commiting crime because it's illegal you know.
That's what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn't be so sneaky and two-faced we'd have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not "won't someone PLEASE think of the children" emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
Ironically it's probably because of all the unwanted children due to legal or cultural prohibitions on abortion that cause the misery needed to lead to school shootings. Aside from that, people sucking does not mean I lose my rights. Tell the media to stop reporting gang shootings near schools as school shootings and drive-bys as mass shootings. Tell the media to stop publicizing the shooters and making them "interesting" to the public. Lots of that shit is copycats.
And they helped us win conflicts. Private warships. Privateers. Cannons, and bombs, and gatling guns in private hands with no issue until people like Reagan got afraid of the blacks and started cracking down on inner cities.
That's difficult to say because they don't say what the question is. It could be as simple as "do you think common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals/children/immigrants are a good idea" or it could be even more weasely. Without knowing the actual question the survey results are meaningless.