OK..
So I keep seeing people making their case for or against stricter gun laws.
List your thoughts or those you have heard... or repost something someone else said that made sense to you.
====

OP:
Many of the murders committed using guns are committed by gangbangers and thugs who purchased them out of a car trunk. Most of those who have a felony record can’t legally own a gun, yet they find a way………and they will continue to do so regardless of any government regulation. Disarming law abiding citizens is not only a violation of our constitutional rights, but a direct threat to our safety and that of our family’s. It’s not about politics, or what side of the aisle you vote on……it’s simple common sense.

That being said, I do agree that powerful weapons with the ability to do mass destruction should be banned from public availability.

Response:
They find a way because we have states that allow private sales of guns without any paper or back ground check. Other nations have managed to come up with much better solutions and yet this same stupid argument that there's no point in gun legislation because criminals break laws still persists. Criminals break speed limit laws but we still have those laws and we still prosecute people over them.

====


We have to be armed in case of invasion from foreign invader.
Response:
When was the last time we were invaded...I'll tell you... 1812.

===

OP:
It's our Constitutional right!

Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution needs to revisited every 20 years or so.
He also said:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

In fact, it's on the Jefferson Memorial.


=======

OP:
We need to be able to hunt to feed our family.

Response:
When was the last time you hunted and killed and ate your prey/fed your family?

====

OP
How about we need assault rifles in case the Fed Govt becomes tyrannical !

Response:
1. When was the last or even the 1st time that ever happened? Never !
2. IF they ever did, you think your one (or 2 or 3, or 4) rifle(s) will stop trained troops with far, far more firepower than you can even dream about? What about Drones ? It's delusional Fantasyland without Goofy !!

Keep in mind that when the 2nd amendment was written and ratified, the fledgling USA had no standing army. An armed populace was its only defense against other nations.

Times have changed. No one needs a Bushmaster, AR-15, AK-47 with massive clips for self defense. If you want one, it should be extremely difficult to obtain one and equally difficult to retain one. And, you cannot sell one without a whole lot of scrutiny and regulation. Close the gun show loop hole(s). Extensive background checks should be required for all firearm transactions, period. None of that infringes on your rights of ownership.

OP 2nd amendment guarantees my right to own a semi-automatic weapon.

Response:
No it doesn't - you still have pistols, rifles, and shot guns**.. in the late 1920s and early 1930s we banned machine guns because mobsters were using them to killpeople... . We outlawed hand grenades... can't get em. So what's the difference with semi-automatics and mega clips? Nothing ! There are limits to your rights ! example: 1st Amendment- can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater. **With the 3 above - anyone's 2nd Amendment rights ARE still preserved.

The point is, that the gun lobby really needs to grow up and understand - one thing.

The Gov is NOT looking to ban (all) guns. Just we the people who choose NOT to have to carry gun , should also NOT be forced to carry one <-- Like NRA wants.

1 - Ban assault riffles , is talked about.
2 - Ban large magazine clips.
3 - Close the gun show loop hole , for no background checks needed. <-- for the life of me who in the h3ll allowed that ? ? -- this is where criminals can get guns.

The NRA makes it look like the gov is trying to ban everything. Not true.

OP:
Hitler won by taking away everyones guns!

Response: (my response was to look this up)
Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS, and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?”

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

I have a simple POV. If we just make it harder to get the deadliest, designed only to kill people guns, we save lives. One 30-round clip less is potentially 30 lives saved.

Oh no, no, no, Steve.... that's too logical and simple... it HAS to be more complicated than that !!

I say if the Gov cannot win against the NRA on the right to bear arms (assault rifles) and large magazines.

Then simply sin tax the shiit out of the bullets that feeds them - like 100 bucks each bullet. Even them gang bangers would think twice about drive by shootings.