Senate Gun Control

You aren't going to convince me Americans should give up their guns. I am not going to convince you we need our guns. We should agree to disagree and agree on a middle ground where we can agree such as comprehensive background checks, better mental health systems, etc.

 

That's glossing over the knife 'problem' you wanted to talk about and now that we're trying to talk about it, you seem to want to ignore it.

 

I am a gun owner and you don't "need" guns. I have no intention of tying to convince you not to own a gun but you live in a modern "first world" country, you don't need a gun.
I don't need a gun, I own mine because I want it and its fun to use down the range. I live in a modern "first world" country.

There is nothing up with wanting to own a gun provided you want to own it for the right reasons and self defence is a garbage reason as the chances of you ever needing to actually use one is miniscule. The few statistics out there often show that the "good man with a gun" myth is indeed a myth and when they do show up, often get shot by the police too.
Your home is very unlikely to be invaded. Home invasions and kidnappings happen to people who have typically done something to some nefarious individual and they are out for revenge.
If male, you're not likely to be raped or a victim of sexual assault. If you're female, this risk does increase but in both cases you'd be better off with a rape alarm or pepper spray or similar.


The fact that your 2nd Amendment has been interpreted and distorted to an extent that a well organised militia now means a person is just insane and you have the likes of the NRA and various republican opposing sensible background checks and limits to to type of weaponry you can own which is just lunacy.

So, I agree with background checks and improving mental health services, I would also go as far as saying home ownership of some guns should be restricted to some extent and if you want to shoot something more "fun" then being a member of a licenced gun range where those types of weapons are allowed would help "scratch that itch".

But fundamentally, your bog standard everyday citizen of the US doesn't "need" a gun. They may "want" one and that's fine but you don't "need" one.

 

But why? What if a majority of Americans supported an Australia-style gun law, but not enough to pass a constitutional amendment. Would you change your mind, or would you oppose the majority?

And speaking of middle ground, okay even if we keep the Second Amendment (doesn't look like it'll be repealed anytime soon anyway) is there any reason it should be interpreted as expansively as it currently is? How about limiting it to revolvers and bolt-action hunting rifles?

I seem to recall during the 1920s, it was illegal to own a Thompson submachine gun because of its sheer destructive power. Some criminals got their hands on them anyway, but that didn't mean we let everyone own them. This wasn't considered to run afoul of the Second Amendment then, so shouldn't limitations on certain weapons today be perfectly constitutional?

 

The US founders original intent, which is apparently a big deal, clearly means muskets and nothing else.

 

Except today muskets would not be qualified for use by civilian militias if they wanted any hope of fighting a military force with modern weapons, and probably not sufficient against criminals with modern handguns either. Respecting the “founding father’s intentions” in spirit does require updates.

 

Nonsense. The first significant gun regulation in American history was during the administration of Teddy Roosevelt, pushed by sports huntsmen and environmentalists together against commercial hunters using punt guns to decimate entire flocks of birds.
Gun regulations aren't inherently racist. The selective application of gun regulations by police is inherently racist. But the point being made was that, in fact, conservatives are for 'gun control' - just for other people.