My Dude, gun crime is higher in states that have less restrictive gun control laws, and the cities that neighbour them. If it’s harder for criminals to buy guns then there will be fewer criminal with guns. It’s not complicated.
“Gun crime is caused by gang!”
“Okay, let’s try to stop gangs getting guns.”
“IMPOSSIBLE!”
It’s really not, you just don’t want a solution because the problem excuses your big pew pew toy.
“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.
I just wanted to thank you for bringing this perspective to the conversation even though you’re getting absolutely blasted for it. That’s a great comic too - I’m saving that for later.
Is this what we call a mask off moment? If the people with their toy guns weren’t trying to be sneaky a two-faced about it we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not “ItS iN tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn!” emotional arguments hiding their desire to not talk about it, not discuss it, and not come up with a solution because any solution might mean they have fewer toys to play with.
At no point is the existence of the 2nd amendment an argument that people should be allowed unrestricted access to guns (Appeal to Authority), and the fact that it is illegal for convicted felons to own guns means having reasonable restrictions is not a violation of the constitution.
What? I think you might be confused. The only ones hiding their true intent are those trying to ban all guns while claiming “reasonable restrictions”. The Second Amendment is historically significant to the founding of the US and is based in the ability of a nation to defend itself with or without a standing army. Human nature has remained the same. Recent failures in “catch and release” or soft on crime prosecutors has shown that despite trying to be progressive and change the way we treat criminals the criminals haven’t changed. They’re still the same as they’ve always been.
Human nature being what it is, until we have perfect mass surveillance and zero freedoms we will continue to have a need to protect ourselves from bad actors.
I’m also of the belief that once a person has served their sentence and been released there shouldn’t be any additional future punishments stemming from prior convictions. They should have all their rights restored. It certainly could be kept as a record to affect their future criminal punishments were they to reoffend, but if the punishment they received wasn’t enough and they have to be punished more then it should have been a part of the initial conviction sentencing.
If the US army suddenly disbanded what are your guns going to do against missles and jets?
Your just showing that the 2nd Amendment is out dated as the reason for its existence is no longer valid.
Recent failures in “catch and release” or soft on crime prosecutors has shown that despite trying to be progressive and change the way we treat criminals the criminals haven’t changed. They’re still the same as they’ve always been.
“The justice system is bad” is an argument to reform the justice system, not vigilantism.
“The justice system is bad” is an excellent argument to make gun less accessible.
Human nature being what it is, until we have perfect mass surveillance and zero freedoms we will continue to have a need to protect ourselves from bad actors.
Again, 4% of the world’s population is responsible for 14% of the worlds guns deaths. Other countries have figured this out without “mass surveillance and zero freedoms”.
I’m also of the belief that once a person has served their sentence and been released there shouldn’t be any additional future punishments stemming from prior convictions.
I don’t disagree, I just want to point out that you just said the justice system is too lenient, and now you’re saying it should be more lenient.
Honestly, if you’re interested in how guns are effective against missiles and jet planes, look at Vietnam or Afghanistan. Then again I think privately owned jet fighters and missiles isn’t out of the bounds of reality.
My Dude, gun crime is higher in states that have less restrictive gun control laws, and the cities that neighbour them. If it’s harder for criminals to buy guns then there will be fewer criminal with guns. It’s not complicated.
“Gun crime is caused by gang!”
“Okay, let’s try to stop gangs getting guns.”
“IMPOSSIBLE!”
It’s really not, you just don’t want a solution because the problem excuses your big pew pew toy.
“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.
I just wanted to thank you for bringing this perspective to the conversation even though you’re getting absolutely blasted for it. That’s a great comic too - I’m saving that for later.
So you’re fine with them repealing the 2nd?
I wouldn’t like it, but that’s the only path for it to be legal. Every other gun control is unconstitutional.
Is this what we call a mask off moment? If the people with their toy guns weren’t trying to be sneaky a two-faced about it we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not “ItS iN tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn!” emotional arguments hiding their desire to not talk about it, not discuss it, and not come up with a solution because any solution might mean they have fewer toys to play with.
At no point is the existence of the 2nd amendment an argument that people should be allowed unrestricted access to guns (Appeal to Authority), and the fact that it is illegal for convicted felons to own guns means having reasonable restrictions is not a violation of the constitution.
What? I think you might be confused. The only ones hiding their true intent are those trying to ban all guns while claiming “reasonable restrictions”. The Second Amendment is historically significant to the founding of the US and is based in the ability of a nation to defend itself with or without a standing army. Human nature has remained the same. Recent failures in “catch and release” or soft on crime prosecutors has shown that despite trying to be progressive and change the way we treat criminals the criminals haven’t changed. They’re still the same as they’ve always been.
Human nature being what it is, until we have perfect mass surveillance and zero freedoms we will continue to have a need to protect ourselves from bad actors.
I’m also of the belief that once a person has served their sentence and been released there shouldn’t be any additional future punishments stemming from prior convictions. They should have all their rights restored. It certainly could be kept as a record to affect their future criminal punishments were they to reoffend, but if the punishment they received wasn’t enough and they have to be punished more then it should have been a part of the initial conviction sentencing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/
The standing army isn’t going anywhere.
If the US army suddenly disbanded what are your guns going to do against missles and jets?
Your just showing that the 2nd Amendment is out dated as the reason for its existence is no longer valid.
“The justice system is bad” is an argument to reform the justice system, not vigilantism.
“The justice system is bad” is an excellent argument to make gun less accessible.
Again, 4% of the world’s population is responsible for 14% of the worlds guns deaths. Other countries have figured this out without “mass surveillance and zero freedoms”.
I don’t disagree, I just want to point out that you just said the justice system is too lenient, and now you’re saying it should be more lenient.
Honestly, if you’re interested in how guns are effective against missiles and jet planes, look at Vietnam or Afghanistan. Then again I think privately owned jet fighters and missiles isn’t out of the bounds of reality.