PaSnow wrote:

buzzsaw wrote:

I'll also tell you I've never owned a gun and went shooting one time with family and didn't enjoy it, so I'm anything but a gun nut.  What I am is a realist.

So you believe Americans should continue to be able purchase AK-47 assault style rifle's??  In case "The Obama's" come to take their guns??

Not sure if you want me to answer this stupid question or the other stupid question, so I'll answer them both.

The bump stocks question I believe (though I don't know since I am not a gun owner) is irrelevant because they are illegal.  Should they be?  I really don't care, but they are and that's fine.  I'm not pushing to overturn in either.  This, like every other gun law, really doesn't matter.  Nothing gets accomplished, nobody's saved, these attacks still happen because this gun law, like every other gun law, does nothing to address the actual issue.  The gun doesn't kill anyone...I know, that's a stupid NRA talking point, only it's 100% true.

As for this question, I already told you the Obama's aren't even in power any more, but you don't seem to understand the history of why the second amendment exists.  Again, keep in mind this is coming from someone that has NEVER owned a gun.  You remember how the US was founded, correct?  A bunch of citizens with guns decided they were done with the tyrannical gov't and rebelled against it.  That worked out okay because well, our citizens had guns.  If they didn't have guns, there would be no US. England wasn't giving us freedom anytime soon.  This is all pretty elementary school stuff. Guns were an important part of the founding of this country.

You with me so far?

Several decades later, the country was divided on several issues...mostly states rights stuff. We are after all a group of states and the states have strong rights of their own as they should. Again the country became involved in a war where citizens used guns to defend themselves (regardless of whether you think they should have seceded or not) from a gov't they felt was tyrannical. Twice in this nation's relatively brief history this country, it's citizens had to take up arms against the gov't. It doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion that the south (where most of the citizens with guns were) lost, it still happened. Will people stop this (or another gov't) if they decide to launch missiles against the people with their guns?  Of course not.  But that doesn't mean the fundamental right granted by the founding fathers in the most important legal document in the country isn't still an important one.  Maybe an AK-47 can protect a family from a gov't out of control though.  Maybe not, but maybe.  I don't think it's my responsibility to make that decision for them.  So my I don't care you can take as a yes, they should be able to buy them following whatever the laws are.

Here's the kicker in all of this: If you ban AK-47s, these attacks still happen.  If you ban bump stocks, as we've seen these attacks still happen.  If every single gun was banned today (forgetting for a second that that would likely start another secession), how long would it take for that to make ANY difference?  20 years?  100 years?  How long have drugs been illegal?  How is that going?  Don't even try to tell me drugs aren't as dangerous as guns because I know a hell of a lot more people that have lost loved ones to drugs than have lost people to gun violence. 

Responding emotionally to anything is irresponsible.  I don't know of any gun owner that has celebrated one of these incidents.  Not one (though I am sure there is one somewhere).  Nobody wants these things to happen, but many, many people understand changing the laws will accomplish nothing and may very well violate the constitution based on some of the crazy emotional suggestions I've seen.  And there's no talking to the anti-gun crowd.  They don't listen to reason, they don't have any sound reasoning behind their argument; it's purely an emotional one. 

Personal accountability could help though.  Hold those responsible for not securing their weapons properly - I have no issue with that.  Taxing bullets?  Maybe, depending on how you do it.  I think every gun owner has a right to x number of bullets for personal use, but if you want to tax an amount over that for the hoarders/cartels/mafia/people creating stockpiles for white supremacy raids...I could get on board with that if the number was reasonable and the tax dollars were used in some manner related to regulating these things and not pissed away. 

I don't and never have owned a gun.  But I am thankful that if I ever wanted to (or needed to), I can.  I believe in the principles that this country was founded on...if I was going to be party affiliated, it would be Libertarian.