STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

[Paulos23]

No, the right to self defense is more important than the convenience of travel.

I know several people that disagree since they need to travel far to get to their jobs.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You guys have your priorities backwards.

Well...that isn't your problem. The inalienable rights of life and liberty are not protected by your Kia Sorento.

 

[Desk trauma]

My implication was if the government was successful at nullifying the Second Amendment it would lead to a war (or major civil unrest) whatever you prefer to label it.

It speaks very poorly of gun owners to say that they would resort to violence over what they see as bad law.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I know several people that disagree since they need to travel far to get to their jobs.

Try traveling after someone car jacks you at gun point (because only criminals will have guns).

 

[Desk trauma]

Try traveling after someone car jacks you at gun point (because only criminals will have guns).

Unless you're saying that every current gun owner would fail the license requirements of this bill that's not going to happen even if this bill is passed as is.

 

[Direct Driver]

The money quote (Italics mine): "Members of Congress are seeking to pass an extreme and unconstitutional gun control bill that would effectively nullify the Second Amendment.

Unconstitutional laws don't survive. Politicians from both parties try it all the time. And they get slapped down all the time. I wouldn't worry about it. Yet.

 

[Speedwell]

Because a car is a privilege, not a right.

Any piece of equipment I own which can pose a danger to others requires liability insurance--a car, a plane, boat, even a steam boiler. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement which does not infringe on my right to own any of those things. It should be the same with a firearm. Own any gun you want. If it's a handgun for home protection and if the owner has training and stores it properly the cost of insurance would be nominal--that's something the free market can figure out. And there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment, express or implied, which confers the right to own a gun in secret from the government.

 

[Nithavela]

No, the right to self defense is more important than the convenience of travel.

Most people couldn't work, and thus couldn't eat, without their car. At the same time, most americans never shoot their gun except on shooting practice.

Cars are more important than guns.

 

[Nithavela]

Well...that isn't your problem. The inalienable rights of life and liberty are not protected by your Kia Sorento.

Those rights are also not protected by your AR-15. They are protected by the laws, government, law enforcement and military of your country. You just like to play predend that you having an obsolete, castrated weapon has any agency in that.

 

[Speedwell]

This bill is insane.. Honestly, as Christians, if this law is passed are we to comply with it? This is making our families vulnerable to give that much detail to the general public where people who would want to do us harm would have access to it.

As a Christian, I find the idea that resistance to any form of gun regulation is a Christian value rather disturbing.

 

[Desk trauma]

Those rights are also not protected by your AR-15. They are protected by the laws, government, law enforcement and military of your country. You just like to play predend that you having an obsolete, castrated weapon has any agency in that.

Our guns at the same time keep us safe from government tyranny and put us in mortal danger of it if there is a record of us having them.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Wait, I'm confused... I thought Obama already took all the guns?

 

[Speedwell]

Our guns at the same time keep us safe from government tyranny and put us in mortal danger of it if there is a record of us having them.

Yes, "I need my guns to protect myself against the government, but if the government knows I got 'em they'll come and take them away and I won't be able to protect myself against the government."

Anybody who thinks that's a cogent argument shouldn't even be allowed to use pointy scissors, much less a firearm.

 

[Desk trauma]

Wait, I'm confused... I thought Obama already took all the guns?

Didn't Clinton do that back in the day? Wait, there were presidents before the last one? What?

 

[Direct Driver]

Any piece of equipment I own which can pose a danger to others requires liability insurance--a car, a plane, boat, even a steam boiler. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement which does not infringe on my right to own any of those things. It should be the same with a firearm. Own any gun you want. If it's a handgun for home protection and if the owner has training and stores it properly the cost of insurance would be nominal--that's something the free market can figure out. And there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment, express or implied, which confers the right to own a gun in secret from the government.

I own hammers, a maul, steak knives, etc. I don't have any "extra" insurance for any of those things.

BTW, anything specifically called out in the constitution as a God given right on which the government cannot infringe is unique in all ways. A simple example of one of the impacts is that it is not something you can license. Car ownership doesn't have that luxury. And that is actually a problem in areas where it's almost impossible to function without a car.

 

[Nithavela]

Our guns at the same time keep us safe from government tyranny and put us in mortal danger of it if there is a record of us having them.

Your guns don't keep you safe from government tyranny because in the event of your goverment becoming tyrannical, half of your country will support it and still have guns. They won't even keep you safe from your neighbours.

 

[Direct Driver]

Yes, "I need my guns to protect myself against the government, but if the government knows I got 'em they'll come and take them away and I won't be able to protect myself against the government."

Anybody who thinks that's a cogent argument shouldn't even be allowed to use pointy scissors, much less a firearm.

It's a valid argument, but not a major one. Considering where I live, the scariest scene I've ever seen in any movie is the opening scene in Inglorious Basterds.

 

[Direct Driver]

Your guns don't keep you safe from government tyranny because in the event of your goverment becoming tyrannical, half of your country will support it and still have guns. They won't even keep you safe from your neighbours.

I was going to ding you on that one, but then I saw you are in Germany. The US has a different history and cultural background regarding guns. It's why freedom to own them is mentioned in the constitution only after freedom of speech. It was critical to our founders and the reason we became a free nation. It's sort of a big deal to Americans that understand our heritage and love our constitution.

To the rest, either they are not part of the American culture or they've forgotten the power behind this phrase: Those that forget history are destined to repeat it.

 

[98cwitr]

Those rights are also not protected by your AR-15. They are protected by the laws, government, law enforcement and military of your country. You just like to play predend that you having an obsolete, castrated weapon has any agency in that.

The Weimar Republic disarmed the people before the Nazis began their human right atrocities. As a German, I would encourage you to remember that. If the German people (ie: Jews, ethnic minorities etc) had the ability to defend themselves, there is an argument that Hilter would have not been able to commit the Holocaust in the first place

Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919.

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4029&context=flr

If 1930s Germany taught us anything, we need 2A more than ever and FORever

 

[Nithavela]

The Weimar Republic disarmed the people before the Nazis began their human right atrocities. As a German, I would encourage you to remember that. If the German people (ie: Jews, ethnic minorities etc) had the ability to defend themselves, there is an argument that Hilter would have not been able to commit the Holocaust in the first place

Again, you are forgetting that the nazi party had HUGE support in the population. Had the ethnic minorities really staged an armed resistance of some kind, it would have been put down by the equally, if not more well armed and more numerous supporters of the government.

Also, nazi germany actually relaxed gun control to any non-suppressed parts of the population.

Tyranny is not "the government versus the population". Tyranny is always "the government and a significant part of the population versus the rest".