What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

Thanks! Million’s of people can’t wait. I’ll let you break it to CA, NJ, NY and CT. NYC will be particularly pissed at you.

What are these millions of gun owners planning to do with their guns as they walk around with them in public?

If it’s for self defense, self defense from who? The other millions of gun owners?

What happens when a firecracker goes off, someone gets trigger happy, and all the gun owners start firing at each other? In all the chaos, how can you tell who to shoot at?

What do the millions of gun owners require from an AR-15 that a small handgun or bear spray couldn’t also do? What is the practical need for a weapon that can mass-murder 45 people in one minute?

Millions of people already carry a firearm around every day. Including around firecrackers.

Yes, for self defense. From the criminals that the people you vote for insist on NOT holding accountable for their crimes.

I don’t carry an AR15. I carry a handgun. Although I have AR-type rifles at home. Although they’re not AR15’s….. so thise must be ok with you, right?

Bear spray? I don’t have bears in my neighborhood. But I do have car jackers.


You sound really histrionic and it’s hard to take you seriously.

So, self defense from….other gun owners. Got it.

I’m a lot less histrionic than the scaredy cats who need to bring an AK 47 to order a sandwich.

You're talking about a population that is in fear of having sandwiches thrown at them.

That’s true, tuna can be lethal without proper training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other rights have restrictions. The first amendment does not give me the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building. Amendment rights are limited in cases to ensure the safety of the greater population.

By that justification, you can argue that requiring background checks and weapons training will ensure the guns are to ensure the community is safe. The same with proper gun storage.

So are you ok with poll taxes? Because that's what you are instituting for the Second Amendment.

Do you think the Second Amendment should be a free-for-all? That literally every weapon that humans are capable of manufacturing are fair game for ownership?

You ever look at what civilians can own?

Virtually everything can be put in civilian hands if you have the money.

Tanks, aircraft, artillery, grenades, flamethrowers. It's all legal.

[Anonymous]

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We would be better off spending a lot of 100 billion for this ridiculous mass deportation program on a buyback program. That is a legitimate opinion and I think we would all get a lot more out of it.

And the funds would go to a lot of American families instead of a bunch of billionaires in the prison industry.

If we deport the illegals, Americans can be a cohesive group again and work to enact policies to support Americans. The only people who win with mass immigration are the billionaires. It's something the right and left should agree on.

What are you smoking? We're not a cohesive group. We never have been. We are not now and we never will be. Obviously we have differences only. We settle them by voting.

I think we should have a constitutional right to abortion. That got voted away from me and if I want it changed I have to change the vote.

We never had a constitutional right to abortion. We had an activist court create it out of thin air. Look, I think every woman should have access to abortion for free, all subsidized by the government. But I can read the Constitution and see there's no such right in it.

Activist courts in the 1980s through the 2000s also created the modern interpretation of the second amendment out of thin air (funded by the NRA). Prior to 1970, the 2A was largely ignored, and understood to be rooted in mistrust of a standing army and therefore applicable only to militias. James Madison’s first draft of the amendment explicitly stated: “a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Note the religious exemption clause, which doesn’t make sense if you’re talking about personal self defense. The phrases “well-regulated” and “militia” imply that the state has a right to regulate firearms.

If you want to be a strict originalist, go right ahead, but you can’t have it both ways.

No, the militia refers to the general public. In the Miller case that said guns are for the militia that people like to cite, Miller was not part of any formal militia. Yet that was not the end of the case for the Supreme Court. They went into a more detailed analysis and ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no military purpose. If the 2nd amendment was about military units well regulated by the states, why did the Supreme Court have to go through what type of weapon was being used for someone not in a military unit? Also, strangely the case had no defense lawyer as Miller was a no show.

“Militia” refers to a militia.

The Supreme Court ruled against Miller, stating that a sawed off shotgun did not have any known (to them) military use and therefore was not protected by the 2A.

And per US Code here is who belongs to the militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So basically every law abiding US citizen is part of the unorganized militia and entitled to bear arms no matter how you want to contort the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We would be better off spending a lot of 100 billion for this ridiculous mass deportation program on a buyback program. That is a legitimate opinion and I think we would all get a lot more out of it.

And the funds would go to a lot of American families instead of a bunch of billionaires in the prison industry.

If we deport the illegals, Americans can be a cohesive group again and work to enact policies to support Americans. The only people who win with mass immigration are the billionaires. It's something the right and left should agree on.

What are you smoking? We're not a cohesive group. We never have been. We are not now and we never will be. Obviously we have differences only. We settle them by voting.

I think we should have a constitutional right to abortion. That got voted away from me and if I want it changed I have to change the vote.

We never had a constitutional right to abortion. We had an activist court create it out of thin air. Look, I think every woman should have access to abortion for free, all subsidized by the government. But I can read the Constitution and see there's no such right in it.

Activist courts in the 1980s through the 2000s also created the modern interpretation of the second amendment out of thin air (funded by the NRA). Prior to 1970, the 2A was largely ignored, and understood to be rooted in mistrust of a standing army and therefore applicable only to militias. James Madison’s first draft of the amendment explicitly stated: “a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Note the religious exemption clause, which doesn’t make sense if you’re talking about personal self defense. The phrases “well-regulated” and “militia” imply that the state has a right to regulate firearms.

If you want to be a strict originalist, go right ahead, but you can’t have it both ways.

No, the militia refers to the general public. In the Miller case that said guns are for the militia that people like to cite, Miller was not part of any formal militia. Yet that was not the end of the case for the Supreme Court. They went into a more detailed analysis and ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no military purpose. If the 2nd amendment was about military units well regulated by the states, why did the Supreme Court have to go through what type of weapon was being used for someone not in a military unit? Also, strangely the case had no defense lawyer as Miller was a no show.

“Militia” refers to a militia.

The Supreme Court ruled against Miller, stating that a sawed off shotgun did not have any known (to them) military use and therefore was not protected by the 2A.

And per US Code here is who belongs to the militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So basically every law abiding US citizen is part of the unorganized militia and entitled to bear arms no matter how you want to contort the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

“The general public” isn’t the same as a militia. It includes a large number of people not eligible for either type of militia. Under this interpretation, in fact, the right to bear arms wouldn’t extend to women and middle aged men.

“Well-regulated” means organized and properly trained, capable of competently executing battlefield maneuvers. It’s hard to argue that the prefatory clause is referring to an unorganized militia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

Weird how Democrats never care about taking guns away in the inner cities where there are far more mass shootings. Democrats just want to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

Bullshit. The inner cities have strict gun laws but the criminals exploit the weak gun laws outside of the cities. That's why a national solution is needed.

And if y'all were ACTUALLY law abiding then the criminals wouldn't have so many easy avenues for getting guns.

No, there are numerous TikTok videos of criminals wielding obviously illegal Glocks with "switches." Those people are not arrested despite their posting evidence of their crimes. Normies are starting to wake up to two-tier "justice" of Democrats and won't stand for it.

Glock switches are a FEDERAL crime - so who's responsible for not enforcing it right now? Trump.

Who wanted the ban on other dangerous and dubious modifications to guns lke bump stocks reversed and removed? Trump.

Don't @ the Democrats here, it's all on backassward Republicans who not only don't want to solve the rampant problems with guns but indeed make them even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We would be better off spending a lot of 100 billion for this ridiculous mass deportation program on a buyback program. That is a legitimate opinion and I think we would all get a lot more out of it.

And the funds would go to a lot of American families instead of a bunch of billionaires in the prison industry.

If we deport the illegals, Americans can be a cohesive group again and work to enact policies to support Americans. The only people who win with mass immigration are the billionaires. It's something the right and left should agree on.

What are you smoking? We're not a cohesive group. We never have been. We are not now and we never will be. Obviously we have differences only. We settle them by voting.

I think we should have a constitutional right to abortion. That got voted away from me and if I want it changed I have to change the vote.

We never had a constitutional right to abortion. We had an activist court create it out of thin air. Look, I think every woman should have access to abortion for free, all subsidized by the government. But I can read the Constitution and see there's no such right in it.

Activist courts in the 1980s through the 2000s also created the modern interpretation of the second amendment out of thin air (funded by the NRA). Prior to 1970, the 2A was largely ignored, and understood to be rooted in mistrust of a standing army and therefore applicable only to militias. James Madison’s first draft of the amendment explicitly stated: “a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Note the religious exemption clause, which doesn’t make sense if you’re talking about personal self defense. The phrases “well-regulated” and “militia” imply that the state has a right to regulate firearms.

If you want to be a strict originalist, go right ahead, but you can’t have it both ways.

No, the militia refers to the general public. In the Miller case that said guns are for the militia that people like to cite, Miller was not part of any formal militia. Yet that was not the end of the case for the Supreme Court. They went into a more detailed analysis and ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no military purpose. If the 2nd amendment was about military units well regulated by the states, why did the Supreme Court have to go through what type of weapon was being used for someone not in a military unit? Also, strangely the case had no defense lawyer as Miller was a no show.

“Militia” refers to a militia.

The Supreme Court ruled against Miller, stating that a sawed off shotgun did not have any known (to them) military use and therefore was not protected by the 2A.

And per US Code here is who belongs to the militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So basically every law abiding US citizen is part of the unorganized militia and entitled to bear arms no matter how you want to contort the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

“The general public” isn’t the same as a militia. It includes a large number of people not eligible for either type of militia. Under this interpretation, in fact, the right to bear arms wouldn’t extend to women and middle aged men.

“Well-regulated” means organized and properly trained, capable of competently executing battlefield maneuvers. It’s hard to argue that the prefatory clause is referring to an unorganized militia.

The Militia Act, enacted within 6 months of the ratification of 2A defined what a militia is - and it's not "the general public."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

This thread is a masterclass in deflection. While children are being gunned down in churches and schools, the author wants you to believe the real crisis is that “White law-abiding males” feel bitter. Let’s be clear: the most urgent and undeniable threat to American lives today is gun violence, not imaginary disarmament campaigns.

Fact Check: Mass Shootings Are a National Emergency

In 2025 alone, there have been 268 mass shootings, leaving 262 dead and over 1,100 wounded.

Here we are in this thread, because yet another gunman opened fire on children, this time during a church mass in Minneapolis, killing two and injuring 17.

Guns are now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States.

This isn’t a partisan talking point, it’s a public health catastrophe.

The “Favored Demographics” Lie: The claim that Democrats exploit violence “by favored demographics” to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities, and mass shootings have occurred in rural towns, urban centers, churches, synagogues, grocery stores, and schools. The victims span every race, religion, and income level.

The PP laments that White gun owners “never actually use” their weapons and “lose power.” That’s not just paranoid, it’s dangerous. The Second Amendment protects ownership, not vigilantism. Power in a democracy comes from civic engagement, not stockpiling ammo.

Most mainstream gun control proposals, of universal background checks, red flag laws, limits on high-capacity magazines are strongly supported by a majority of Americans, including gun owners. These are targeted, evidence-based policies aimed at reducing preventable deaths, not disarming law-abiding citizens.

The disingenuous posters above try to reframe a national tragedy as a culture war grievance. It ignores the bodies piling up in classrooms and churches. It weaponizes racial resentment while deflecting from the real issue: America’s gun violence epidemic. If your response to mass shootings is fear of losing symbolic power, not fear for the lives of children, then you’ve lost the plot and along with it, your moral compass. Sorry, PP, you've lost the debate. It only continues to exist in the rarefied atmosphere of well funded gun lobbyists and corrupt GOP politicians, not among the mainstream of America.

I thought the shooter was a woman. No?

No it was a man claiming to be a woman. The media is not interested in reporting this detail, because it doesn't fit their preferred narrative.
There has been a tendency of trans shooters lately.

Not even. A male who temporarily claimed to be a woman, and then went back to being a man. A man, deeply infused with a ton of right wing neo-nazi hate, with nazi slogans like "six million wasn't enough" written on his gun and magazines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will agree to every policy you just suggested if you agree to recognize a state issued concealed carry license in the same manner a driver’s license is recognized. We can carry in any state and city in America. Deal?

Ok deal. OP here.

I've never felt you needed to take away gun rights. If people are responsible, it negates the danger of random violence. This is why countries who love guns do not have our problems. So it's about responsibility.

People aren't responsible. Therefore it's irresponsible to allow guns to be handed out like candy.

[Anonymous]

One mass shooting is too many.

Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many.

Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.

Do what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity. After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control. But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims. What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.

The only "children" important to the GOP/MAGA RW evangelicals are the unborn. Twenty children murdered at Sandy Hook and no outrage but it if an abortion clinics performed 20 abortion in the time it took Adam Lanza these "avenging anti-abortion" cretins would be screaming.

"Adam Lanza killed the children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in a span of less than five minutes. During this time, he fired 154 rounds from a rifle."

[Anonymous]

Trump's administration claims to be law and order and anti-crime but that's all a bullshit smokescreen. All they really care about is deporting brown people.

This tragedy could have been prevented.



Trump is failing us on crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One mass shooting is too many.

Stop talking, start doing. That means you, Republicans. You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.

Do what exactly?

Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's. Get cracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Repeal the 2nd Amendment

At least now you are thinking in a proper fashion, rather than just ignoring the 2nd amendment or claiming it only refers to the national guard.