128
Comments (211)
sorted by:
75
MAGASamson 75 points ago +75 / -0

Pass them out to neighbors if necessity requires. NO INFRINGEMENT MEANS NO INFRINGEMENT.

20
AngelCole 20 points ago +20 / -0

Period. Amen.

50
navycuda 50 points ago +52 / -2

If you can’t own the same weapons as the government, then there is an unfair power imbalance.

21
Dashmoomoo 21 points ago +21 / -0

Logic Detected. You are guilty of wrong think.

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
3
LongTimeListener 3 points ago +3 / -0

During the Civil War local men formed and armed their own battalions with the same equipment available to Government formations. Today we couldnt even field the cannons that were available to anybody with the cash in the 1860s.

An AR is about the best weapon available to the public without special licenses or illegal procurement and an AR is very far from being a military effective weapon. The AR wont penetrate military grade body armor and the body armor we can buy is ineffective against the military grade weaponry and ammo.

The advantage we have is sheer numbers -- of people and volume of weapons. As I see it this guy is just doing his part. There are three people in this photo capable of handling any of the 100 or so weapons we see. But those weapons can arm his neighbors when the pedophile satanists push their final solution, a full mad max scenario.

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can have cannons...

38
TrumpTrollMaster 38 points ago +38 / -0

It would take 650 years for the same number of people killed by psychos to catch up to Jews killed by Germans in WWII or 10,500 years of Chinese killed by Mao during the Communist reign

Governments, not people, are the greatest perpetrators of violence.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XPwnR3OdIDw

38
Lapstrake 38 points ago +38 / -0

If you don't like it, amend the Constitution.

Families like this one aren't shooting up schools.

-16
patriot68 [S] -16 points ago +2 / -18

Actually it was a bad choice for a photo. I should have put up Adam Lanza, but I had a clear photo of this family that I really liked. I can't change it now. But it should be Adam Lanza or the redhead Joker from the theater.

19
TakeItBack 19 points ago +19 / -0

There was no Adam Lanza. It was all entirely and utterly piled higher and deeper ....bullshit.

10
Factfiler 10 points ago +10 / -0

Hallelujah that someone else understands there was no Adam Lanza. Nobody, and I mean nobody, died at SH.

1
TakeItBack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks for the agreement! It's appalling how little-known or suspected this is. I was just going over some of the SH files I had collected from 2012 recently....good reminder.

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

This right here

12
Cheesecakecrush 12 points ago +12 / -0

So you basically are arguing against firearm ownership. To answer your question in the OP: You're arguing for death by a thousand cuts.

"Reasonable" restrictions, my ass. Every one of these shooters either acquired their weapons illegally, were known by law enforcement to be a potential threat that they did nothing about, or both. Those "reasonable" restrictions only stop the people who AREN'T a threat to a school full of children or a theater premier from accessing weapons to exercise their natural right to self defense. The criminals who WOULD shoot kids or theater patrons don't give a shit about the law.

6
I-AM-ANON 6 points ago +6 / -0

Every single thing about this photo screams “try to fuck with my daughter or any other child in our community and this entire neighborhood will be armed and ready”

10
I-AM-ANON 10 points ago +10 / -0

The fact that you chose this photo as if there is anything wrong with it shows you have been domesticated like a little poodle-yorkie.

2
Ogcarvattack 2 points ago +2 / -0

The only thing wrong with this photo is that the guns don't spell America.

1
SteveRogers42 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only not as cute.

2
ThePowerOfPrayer 2 points ago +2 / -0

Actually, you're a troll.

1
LongTimeListener 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wake the fuck up. Jeez, Lanza and the theater shooter? Fucking ops by the government intended to deny the people in this photo from defending themselves.

31
Uncle_Fester 31 points ago +31 / -0

"...shall not be infringed..."

Not just pretty words.

24
Matthew246Truth 24 points ago +24 / -0

Some people collect Stamps...So, what's your point? (Askin' fer a fren)

23
Sabre2th 23 points ago +23 / -0

None, fuck you very much.

3
russiah 3 points ago +3 / -0

👍🏻

19
treepainter 19 points ago +19 / -0

The citizens form a militia not the government. A well regulated militia to me means being at the ready for a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment wasn't written for bird or deer hunters. With the influx of all kinds of social experimentation in our military it has severely affected the protection of the citizens. The military is the organization that doesn't seem to be at the ready. The militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

7
Datadude 7 points ago +7 / -0

The States have the right to form a militia to defend itself from the federal government,

as the people have the right to keep and bear arms to defend itself from the State.

Checks and balances,

just as it was written in the Constitution...

3
yudsfpbc 3 points ago +3 / -0

The federal government has no right to a standing army, or arms for that matter

4
Datadude 4 points ago +4 / -0

A federal army to defend national sovereignty against foreign enemies, never to be used domestically, as per the posse comitatus act...

We've come a long way since the war of 1812.

Give em a inch, the next thing you know, there's a tank on the front lawn.

2
yudsfpbc 2 points ago +2 / -0

The problem with power is if you leave it lying around, someone is going to pick it up and start using it for their ends.

Get rid of the US military. Now no one will be tempted to use it.

Get rid of 99.99% of the federal budget. Now no more lobbyists!

1
Datadude 1 point ago +1 / -0

To be encased in glass, and glass only broken in case of emergency.

2
yudsfpbc 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nope. No more emergencies.

1
Datadude 1 point ago +1 / -0

You say that now but, what's gonna happen when Tijuana Mexico comes to the realization that we have a senile demented old fool as commander and chief, and then designs, develops and deploys an all out assault of chihuahuas, banty roosters and coyotes on our southern border.

Then you'll be singing a different tune,

Oh wait, we have a standing army of misfits, degeneres, and woketard trans gay flower brigades.

What was I thinking, I'm glad I learned spanish....;-)

18
Whizwit21 18 points ago +18 / -0

Does this bother you more than 500 people with 1 gun each?

4
InarosPrime 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly. No matter how many guns a person owns, they are going to have a hard time accurately firing more than one at a time.

12
Narg 12 points ago +12 / -0

"Oh, don't worry about that new income tax. It tops out at 5% and only applies to multi-millionaires."

"No, of course we won't ever use your Social Security number for identification."

"Instead of going after the perpetrators of 9/11 with Letters of Marque and Reprisal as the Constitution allows, we're going to start entire new zillion-dollar wars that will wreck foreign nations, get thousands of American soldiers killed, and allow for corruption on a scale you wouldn't believe. Oh, wait. I meant we're invading Iraq and Afghanistan to PROTECT you."

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

If you believe the government will EVER stop at "reasonable" (whatever the hell THAT means) infringements of our rights, you haven't been paying attention.

Edit: let's make that "alleged" perpetrators of 9/11, since even if Ron Paul's resolution to USE Letters of Marque and Reprisal had passed, going after a bunch of Arabs hiding in caves halfway across the world wouldn't have gotten us to the actual perps.

-15
patriot68 [S] -15 points ago +2 / -17

I wouldn't trust any government solution on the federal level. Any special case gun legislation should be passed and enforced on the local level, and the sheriff in each county should implement it. The list of gun owners should be carefully protected from the feds in case of any efforts for national confiscation.

Look at Florida leading the way on mask mandates. The more difficult solutions will come from local government, not federal.

19
NOT_ADMIN 19 points ago +19 / -0

Nope. You don't infringe. That's it. The end it's not governments business. They don't own our God given rights.

5
Narg 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'd decentralize even further, and allow for non-government gun control (in businesses, gated communities or neighborhoods, shopping districts, etc -- anywhere a person or group of people decide on such unanimously). "No gun zones" are notoriously counter-productive, of course, but I can see a shopping district, say, deciding to ban fully automatic weapons or mortars. Not that I expect that would actually accomplish anything, but it would be their decision, not mine.

Government is the wrong tool for "protecting us from our own rights" because once you give government the power for "reasonable" restrictions, the definition of reasonable eventually becomes "total."

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well that why its called concealed carry...

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Florida didn't least they way on anything. Its individuals who stand up and tell the government to shove it up their ass that lead the way. In this nation we worship Jesus. NOT GOVERNMENT.

So let's say the sheriff changes over the years and you end up with a power hungry despot. How is that gonna work out for you?

There is no such thing as a constitutional right. They are God given rights. The constitution is a set of negative rights that are written to place limitations on government.

1
ThePowerOfPrayer 1 point ago +1 / -0

In fact, the only way your proposal could even happen is if the 2nd amendment is overturned by a new Constitutional amendment.

Our right to bear arms isn't up to the local level.

11
sleepydude 11 points ago +11 / -0

The only way to overthrow a corrupt government, as enshrined by the Declaration of Independence, is to have weaponry equal in effectiveness as that corrupt government.

Which pans out two ways:

Option A. If the government doesn't want people to have guns, then they shouldn't have guns either. That can never happen, as you'd be an open target for invasion, so option B.

Option B. People need guns to defend themselves from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

The greatest threat in domestic life is a government in which you have no representation and cannot air your grievances legally.

The Founding Fathers understood all of this, and they decided that the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. You can't form a militia by asking the government to arm you, if the government is the causal factor for forming a militia to defend your property and interests.

If the government doesn't want people to have guns, then THEY should be the first to offer a system that has no need of guns for ANY man, woman, or child. Period. End violence, not just war, and then we can talk about getting rid of guns.

Barring that, if they want people to not have access to devastating weapons, they should probably stop making armaments so good at killing.

4
yudsfpbc 4 points ago +4 / -0

Ideally, the people have ALL the guns, and the government has none.

6
sleepydude 6 points ago +6 / -0

Ideally, the government ARE the people, and so everyone has an equal right to arm themselves.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

That means the Government is not full of elites beyond reproach. It means that the people govern themselves by electing the most trusted among them to represent their interests.

As far as I'm concerned, it's better to mandate that everyone should carry a gun and a knife. The world would be a hell of a lot more polite and compassionate then. The ones most likely to commit crimes would be shot dead pretty damn quick, and the genes to burn, loot, and murder would be excised from the face of the Earth forever.

That's not a jab at any one race, mind you. It's more of a jab at psychopathy in general. Arm the victims, BEFORE they become a victim.

-1
patriot68 [S] -1 points ago +2 / -3

An armed Society is a polite Society. And you're right, it will tend to automatically deal with violence and improve the gene pool. I just hope that before we get to that point people can learn to deal with psychopaths in general, and safely neutralize them. We are very slowly moving in that direction since the Trump Administration.

8
RonPaulRepublican 8 points ago +9 / -1

Armed as high as any Gov't

8
NOT_ADMIN 8 points ago +8 / -0
  • Nope. Just like there should not be limits on any GOD GIVEN RIGHT So long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
  • The question is the wrong one. Why aren't there more guns in schools? Guns are the only neutralizing factor against other people with guns.
  • Presidents, politicians, celebrities l all have people with guns to protect them. In yet, we allow schools to be gun free, wait for a massacre, then call people with guns to save them.
  • there is a reason people do not rob or shoot up guns stores.
  • There is no law that will stop a criminal from getting a gun. Laws do not stop criminals who ignore laws.
  • A disarmed populace is one that has no way to defend any other rights.
  • places withhighes5 gun control have the highest rate of crime.
  • Over the past three decades (1991-2019), violent crime rates have dropped by more than half. The number of privately-owned firearms in the United States doubled in that same period.
  • The number of people carrying a firearm for protection outside the home has also risen to all-time highs as violent crime dropped.
  • Mass murderers have repeatedly been deterred or stopped by citizens carrying lawfully concealed firearms.
  • Concealed carry laws help reduce the number of rapes and robberies overall.
  • We dont need gun control WE NEED CRIME CONTROL.
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
-19
patriot68 [S] -19 points ago +1 / -20

You first, Captain Lazy.

11
PepeSee 11 points ago +11 / -0

You're a total faggot. Go back to P.win and suck your thumb there.

2
NotLikeThis 2 points ago +2 / -0

I've a gun in my closet that has gone from a pistol to an SBR, back to a pistol (and I think an AOW for week).

Even if we get what you deem "reasonable" it will only stay that way for a week.

Nope, no thanks.

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yup.

1
LongTimeListener 1 point ago +1 / -0

Really? Its your fucking post. You wont defend your position because there isnt any effective defense for it. All you have is emotion. Logic is not included. The opposing viewpoint has been very effectively made by numerous posts before this one.

Fuck off shill.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
7
Fikkan 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'm a conservative and I believe in reasonable restrictions.

Reasonable restrictions such as budget and storage space.

7
PepeSee 7 points ago +7 / -0

Second random anti-gun post on here today that I've seen.

What the FUCK faggot?

Edit - and they are both phrased the same way. Shill accounts activated would be my guess.

6
gobby 6 points ago +6 / -0

Define "reasonable restrictions."

Now define, "Shall not be infringed."

Get it?

-12
patriot68 [S] -12 points ago +2 / -14

Define "militia."

Define "being." (It's in there, and it's important.)

3
gobby 3 points ago +3 / -0

Seriously? Learn some history.

-12
patriot68 [S] -12 points ago +1 / -13

Learn to read the amendment. The whole thing.

4
pattrn 4 points ago +4 / -0

It might be a bit confusing to understand the amendment due to the wording. It says that because a properly functioning militia is necessary for the security of the free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say that you must be part of a militia in order to bear arms. You may want to learn to comprehend what you read before asking others to learn to read.

Edit: The section about the militia is extremely important, because it explicitly states the reason for the right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. Its purpose is to maintain a free society. Most people in this thread understand that, despite your opinion that they don't.

3
Viewer01 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. The right to bear arms is an individual right. So your argument is moot and based in complete ignorance of the law and precedent.

Come up with solutions that don't require infringement of civil liberties and you might get some traction. It is simply close mindedness on your end that bogs this whole thing down.

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well regulated doesn't mean what you think it means. And you probably fail to understand that little comma is separating two distinct ideas.

Maybe you should read some James Madison.

1
patriot68 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

The word "being" in the first half makes it an explanation of the second half. They are clearly connected, and it's one sentence.

And yes, I have read more James Madison than most people. But I'm sure you know it was Thomas Jefferson that wrote this amendment. His original had only one comma, but unfortunately the copies sent out for ratification to the states were misprinted with extra commas.

1
Ogcarvattack 1 point ago +1 / -0

So then explain what a militia is...

Why is it necessary? What does it mean to be well regulated?

Or just call me lazy.

1
patriot68 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well regulated means well provisioned, well-trained, and well disciplined.

1
Dogsoldier2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep, and here's the legal definition:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

-9
patriot68 [S] -9 points ago +2 / -11

That helps to illustrate the problem. Most people in this thread apparently believe militia has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

They don't want to acknowledge the militia clause, they don't want to talk about it, and they want to cuss at you and insult you if you don't agree that only four words of that Amendment are important.

4
NooneFor2024II 4 points ago +4 / -0

You are missing the point again and again. The GOVT has no part in the militia; the CITIZENS are the militia.

1
patriot68 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, the citizens are the militia. I have never said otherwise.

5
Merkava_4 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes, no restrictions whatsoever. We should be able to own an M60 machine gun if we want one.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +4 / -0

The real issue is how anyone could suggest we need gun control when we have prima facie evidence that police will not protect us. So in essence, demanding gun control is literally saying that you want to be more vulnerable to the acts of bad people. There is no other way around it. Have we all got the memory of a gold fish or something? It wasn't that long ago that we had riots across the country and many published 911 calls saying "sorry, figure it out. police are busy and cannot respond." And now we have this highly suspect school shooting with a ridiculous delay in intervention.

4
yudsfpbc 4 points ago +4 / -0

Any restriction is unreasonable. There is no reasonable restriction.

0
PompeiusMagnus 0 points ago +2 / -2

So, you'd advocate for John Wayne Gacy to have unlimited access to firearms?

And you'd advocate for private citizens to have nuclear warheads?

There are indeed reasonable restrictions.

1
yudsfpbc 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes.

Let me be clear:

YYYYEEEESSSSS.

By virtue of being alive, you have every right to arm yourself with whatever you feel is necessary to protect yourself, your family, your neighbors and your property.

1
ThePowerOfPrayer 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, you'd advocate for John Wayne Gacy to have unlimited access to firearms?

Gacy was a card carrying Democratic Party Precinct Captain

Gacy is also dead. Let him have all the guns he can purchase.

1
PompeiusMagnus 1 point ago +1 / -0

I see rhetoric is beyond your capabilities. Allow me to clarify:

A serial killer akin to John Wayne Gacy.

0
ThePowerOfPrayer 0 points ago +1 / -1

You think gun laws are stopping a serial killer.

Common sense is beyond your capabilities.

1
PompeiusMagnus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Now you’re a mind reader? Wow!

You have absolutely no clue what I believe or don’t believe. You are not as smart as you believe you are.

0
ThePowerOfPrayer 0 points ago +1 / -1

You said rhetoric was beyond my capabilities, but that was clearly projection.

1
PompeiusMagnus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah okay, that’s how you want it. Very well, I know you are but what am I?

Now I’m on your level. You may proceed.

-2
patriot68 [S] -2 points ago +2 / -4

Precisely. I was just wondering what the temperature was in here regarding that. It sounds like everyone wants personal nukes.

4
Oblakhan 4 points ago +4 / -0

The people that are pushing for gun control are not reasonable people. I think a more proper adjective to describe them would be homocidal or perhaps even better genocidal.

3
rickynottricky 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe we should disarm the government...

3
OneArmedViolinist 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's what "Shall not be infringed" means, bucko. What someone owns in private is of no concern to anyone but the owner.

3
Dogsoldier2 3 points ago +3 / -0

If that picture upsets you maybe you shouldn't come to my farm. I introduced my grandson to full auto suppressed, belt feds and an AK47 "shorty" when he was 11 years old. He was already very proficient with bolt action and semi-auto. And yes everything you see is legal. There's more but we only broke a few out that day cause it was hot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrC9q0oM0N8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLgGM0yWhE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw29iQuuAfU

2
LongTimeListener 2 points ago +2 / -0

Im the same kind of grandpa.

1
Dogsoldier2 1 point ago +1 / -0

I made him load all the belts he shot that day. A couple of tracers got mixed in with the belt in the first video and it set my sunflower field on fire. Had to jump on the nearest tractor and go put it out. lol

-8
patriot68 [S] -8 points ago +1 / -9

I think it's a very cool photo, that's why I saved it. If you think I'm objecting to the photo, you didn't read my comment.

I would love to have neighbors like that. I'll bet they're great people.

2
Dogsoldier2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh my bad. I thought you were dissing the folks for owning so many guns.

1
ThePowerOfPrayer 1 point ago +2 / -1

OP's trolling and doesn't like the backlash.

-6
patriot68 [S] -6 points ago +1 / -7

Aw, hell no.

3
CovfefeNegro 3 points ago +5 / -2

Can't speak for 'conservatives' but sane folks do, yeah. For instance, it used to be acceptable for a neighbor to have a 12 pounder field piece if he wanted one in case he needed to fire a round over the State House, but the fact of the matter is that your right to that ends when your cannon ball goes flying over my property and scares my cow outa her milk.

So we have to have 'some' Societal accommodations so that everyone's Rights are good. If you look at the various militia acts and such things the Unorganized Militia- every male between 16 and 45 I think - is required to bear arms against a tyrannical government and to support a Peaceful Society. Those arms are generally defined as equivalent to what Federal Troops might carry, State of the Art arms. Not crew served weapons or specialty weapons, those are kept by the Organized Militias, the Guard units and State Militias.

Our double damned corrupt government says, you peons cannot fight 'us' with rifles, you need nukes and F-15s'... no, we need millions of rifles and the moral strength to use them is all. Cops want 24 guys with body armor, shields, robots, drones, rifles, automatic carbines, shotguns, gas shells, pyrotechnics dogs and social workers to go in against 1 terrorist punk with a rifle and armor. But in reality, millions of guys/gals with rifles OWN this Society, not the double damned corrupt government who does nothing correct.

Yeah we have limits on arms and rightly so, my neighbor does not need a flammenwerfer.

3
Jesseroonie 3 points ago +3 / -0

Doesn't hold. You argue against use, not possession. If I don't spook your cows, no harm done by my ownership. This same argument can be made about a .22.

1
CovfefeNegro 1 point ago +1 / -0

It was just an example, the point being your Rights end where they meet the Rights of other citizens or the Rights of Greater Society.

That argument is made about .22s, shoot one off on a crowded city street and find out. I merely added glamour to the .22 in question....

0
Jesseroonie 0 points ago +1 / -1

My rights do not end where yours begin. My rights end when I inflict harm. Modern thinking fails when it assumes the purpose of law is to prevent harm. If the purpose of law is to prevent your neighbor from having the ability to inflict harm, then taken to it's logical outcome, you and your neighbor will be jailed preemptively. Nor is it the purpose to ensure you have rights only to what you need; that way lies the elimination of personal property rights. As the Bard wrote, "Oh reason not the need.." Your neighbor may not "need" a flamethrower now, but at some point, you might find you wish he had.

-11
patriot68 [S] -11 points ago +3 / -14

You are going to get so down voted for being sensible. It might take a minute, first they have to look up flammenwerfer.

4
PepeSee 4 points ago +4 / -0

Oh PLEASE.

1
CovfefeNegro 1 point ago +1 / -0

My first Wife used to smack me over head and schreech 'I hate it when you're right'!!

But they gave you the downdoots...KEK!

https://files.catbox.moe/e4h2uj.jpg

2
Infidel440 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think I count 196, holy smokes. Must be rich. 😬

2
tattletalestrangler 2 points ago +2 / -0

I guess you think gun control laws are going to stop a criminal from obtaining a gun? If so, you are completely wrong.

2
09re 2 points ago +2 / -0

My next door neighbor used to hide a couple of his new guns at my house so his wife wouldn't be mad.other than that no problem having as many as you want.

2
Rawhyde 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why should I support any restriction on my rights?

-10
patriot68 [S] -10 points ago +1 / -11

Do you have SSRI problems? Are you a violent criminal or a foreign terrorist? No? Then we're not talking about you.

3
Rawhyde 3 points ago +3 / -0

Define SSRI problem. Distinguish the levels of depression and how the mental health industry’s addiction to psychotropic drugs negates one’s right or the rights of family to self protection. Define violent criminal in a judicial system purporting that Jan 6 protestors are terrorists and sides with a political mindset that there is no inherent right to self defense. Any one of ‘us’ is one court decision away from being wrongfully persecuted into any of these categories. So yeah fuckwit, you are talking about me.

-7
patriot68 [S] -7 points ago +2 / -9

An SSRI problem as it relates to firearms would be where the patient is not responding well to the prescription, is on social media describing fantasies of shooting up schools, and is actively acquiring weapons to fulfill that mentally unstable plan. You would do nothing?

A local community should have a panel of trusted experts, not anti-gun activists, that are alerted when such conditions are imminent. In light of the violent posts, the person can be brought in for proper examination before something tragic happens.

I agree that a violent criminal cannot be defined by the Democrats, because to them anyone supporting Trump is a violent criminal.

I also agree that any solution created by Democrats will generally f*** everything up. That's why conservatives need to step in and get it done for greater safety in the community while supporting everyone's right to keep and bear arms.

3
Rawhyde 3 points ago +3 / -0

Until the problem with our culture is corrected then no remedy will work. The whole notion of tolerance is another issue. Fifty years ago there were more guns per capita than today and guns were much more prolific. Back then the culture was vastly different than today and people did not tolerate the bullshit that passes today.

1
ThePowerOfPrayer 1 point ago +1 / -0

I support a partial ban of SSRIs.

Democrats and RINOs currently on SSRIs can voluntarily give up their right to bear arms if they want to keep taking them.

2
emcofan31 2 points ago +2 / -0

I am for reasonable restrictions on government. I don't want to take it away, just enact common sense safety reforms...that way, the tree of liberty doesn't need as much watering, which is good for their safety!

2
Mikeua68 2 points ago +2 / -0

We sure don’t…

2
Just_dumping_fuel 2 points ago +2 / -0

the restriction is being born with only two hands

2
Drakeford 2 points ago +2 / -0

shall not be infringed.

2
001wickedwolf 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes.

2
Whizwit21 2 points ago +2 / -0

Jerry Seinfeld has 100 Porsches he can still only drive one at a time

2
DeathRayDesigner 2 points ago +2 / -0

Look, I am totally supportive of the 2nd Amendment. No issue there. But many of you are being led by a rabbit across the field. The key insight is that the Constitution provides no power for Congress to legislate re the ownership of firearms. Read the list of enumerated powers. It's not there. And if it isn't there, the 9th and 10th Amendments prevent it from being there.

Just thought you'd like to know.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-3
patriot68 [S] -3 points ago +1 / -4

I actually support that number of guns. It's a cool pic. The real question I was asking is in my first comment.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
0
patriot68 [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

Very first comment of the thread.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
patriot68 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ok, just for you, I'll repost my opening comment. Here it is.

I'm so perplexed that many Americans feel that they cannot support any reasonable restriction on gun ownership. "Shall not be infringed," they repeat endlessly as if that's the whole amendment. They chop off the whole first half that specifies the main reason to have firearms. They don't like, or don't understand, the mention of a militia so they pretend that part was never written.

Are we actually advocating for no restrictions whatsoever? Teenagers with a serious SSRI problem and murderous fantasies, violent criminals, foreign terrorists, we support all of them having unlimited firepower? Seriously. I want to know what our position should be as constitutional conservatives.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Hope70 2 points ago +2 / -0

No. Give an inch and they will tak a mile.

2
OldManTouchyBiden 2 points ago +4 / -2

Look, I'm of the belief that they're no logical reason to own an AR-15, but at the same time, I feel like if we give the slightest inch, the anti-gun people will demand more and more guns be made illegal until we cannot defend ourselves and end up in a Venezuela or Australia-like state where the state can impose their will without fear of rebuke. Think of it this way. We don't want kids to die in school shootings, but at the same time we shouldn't want them to grow up as prisoners to an overpowered political system. You can't simultaneously guarantee freedom and safety. Short term sacrifices hurt in the long term.

EDIT: Chill, people. I'm allowed to have my opinion, as are you, I'm not saying you can't own one I'm just saying I don't see the reason why you need one. Don't jump down my throat.

7
gobby 7 points ago +7 / -0

No logical reason? Then your logic is flawed.

5
lkjsdf9845 5 points ago +5 / -0

no logical reason to own an AR-15

Then why do cops carry them?

Keep in mind, cops don't have any more right to shoot people than you do. They only have a right to shoot in self-defense, the same as you.

So why do they carry AR-15s, if there's no logical reason to do so?

Maybe you need to learn about guns.

3
SuddenRealization 3 points ago +3 / -0

No logical reason? Rifles are more accurate than handguns, cannot easily be taken off of you or dropped, cannot be concealed easily, less likely to accidentally shoot yourself, and have superior stopping power against someone trying to kill you.

There's a reason far more homicides happen with handguns than rifles.

3
Mikeua68 3 points ago +3 / -0

ARs are perfect for pigs.

2
Angela84 2 points ago +2 / -0

I disagree. I love on a farm we "hunt" squirrels and wild pigs. For the squirrels the forman uses a shotgun. My uncle tried to use a 22 and hit nothing. He has recently and quite successfully moved up to a larger caliber. I don't know if he technically uses an AR-15 but it looks like that sort of gun. AR-15's aren't powerful enough to hunt boar with. You need serious stopping power for that.

Then there is the bigger reason for guns, defense against crazy people. Ive seem people walking through my land at night, it's scary as hell. They are probably idiot teens or drinks. So I like the biggest scariest looking thing ever. Then they will see me and leave. It's worked in the past.

I would guess "reasonable gun control" would distroy both my protection and pest control so I go with no thanks we keep all the guns.

2
Datadude 2 points ago +2 / -0

AR-15 can be chambered in .458 socom, 450 bearcat, 300 blackout, 6.8, 6.5, 6.0, 5.56, 1.7 with just swapping parts. No special machining. How many calibers do you need?

With modification to the mag well you have about a half dozen more choices.

1
Angela84 1 point ago +1 / -0

I mostly whine at others to get rid of the pigs. They could probably answer your question.

1
Datadude 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds like pork chops delivered. :)

2
Angela84 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love making sausage. Takes a while but totally worth it.

1
Dogsoldier2 1 point ago +1 / -0

AR-15's are 5.56mm or .223 (only difference in those two is head spacing) which is nothing but a .22 caliber moving at a higher velocity.

3
Datadude 3 points ago +3 / -0

Head space and pressure,

you can feed .223s in a barrel chambered in 5.56 all day long,

but the working psi of the 5.56 exceeds the working psi of the .223 barrel, plus the forced infacement of the 5.56 cause the psi to spike even higher, if I recall +/- 40k psi.

Problem waiting to happen.

2
Dogsoldier2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Correct. 5.56 NATO runs hotter (higher chamber pressure) than .223 which is loaded to SAAMI specs.

2
Datadude 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes Sir, we speak the same language, and probably both smell like gunpowder.

Keep your powder dry Patriot

2
Dogsoldier2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Always. And you too, brother.

2
BetterNameUnfound 2 points ago +2 / -0

SHALL NOT.

1
Infidel440 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dannng, this pic makes me jealous.

1
VulgarProfit 1 point ago +1 / -0

Restrictions don't stop psychos, you're pissing in the wind.

1
detransthrowaway 1 point ago +1 / -0

Dude doesn't just have a safe, he bought the whole damn weapon store!

1
Suckitreddit 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s good to have hobbies.

1
kish-kumen 1 point ago +2 / -1

I can think of one common sense gun restriction: every citizen who is of reasonably sound mind and who is sufficiently able-bodied, is restricted to owning NO LESS THAN two firearms: at least one revolver or pistol, and at least one rifle or gun.

No upper limit to how many you can own.

Fine them a huge amount if they ever own less than two (without a permit).

I guess that's more of a mandate. But you get the idea.

1
patriot68 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why doesn't my most recent post show up here?

1
Pbman2 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think preschoolers should not be able to buy hand grenades.

-12
patriot68 [S] -12 points ago +2 / -14

But-but-but... muh "shall not be infringed!"

NO RESTRICTIONS. Hand that kid all the grenades he wants. 'Merica. /s

1
Pbman2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only if a parent or older kid is with him.

1
Jesseroonie 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's correct. I feel the same way about knives, hammers, and cars, all of which can and are used to kill.

1
VetforTrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you are in prison for murder, rape, treason you lose you rights to keep and bear arms. Oh, you lose your freedom for life also. For the treason you hang.