Stupid 2nd Amendment Arguments and Bickering Won't Cut It

[MineralMan]

with regard to the Las Vegas mass shooting. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right to sit in a hotel room with a pile of semi-auto rifles that have been accessorized to fire like a full-auto firearm and kill or wound hundreds of people. It's about Americans having the right to own firearms for their defense against whatever threats come up and to join with their neighbors to fight foes of America as part of the civilian militia.

It's also not about oddball firearms that could fire more than one round every minute or so at the time that Amendment was written. It's not about that at all. It's not about the NRA's insistence that everyone should be armed at all times and ready to blow away anyone they don't like or who they think is an enemy of their twisted sense of what is right, either.

This is not the time for nomenclaturists to bicker about the words people use to describe firearms, either. It's not the time for people to cite obscure arguments about firearms and interpretations of what the 2nd Amendment really, really means.

If that's what you have in mind to do in GD right now, you're going to get a lot of blowback, at the very least, from people who recognize the Las Vegas mass shooting as a horrible distortion of the 2nd Amendment. Just don't do that. Not right now. Not in GD. If you must make such arguments, put them in the Gun Control & RKBA Group, where they will find a nice, friendly audience.

Right now, the vast majority of DUers are not in the mood for lessons on firearms vocabulary or justfications for ownership of an arsenal of military-style semi-auto rifles with the intent to use them to kill people you don't know. We're just not in the mood for that. Save it. It's not the right time for such crap, in my opinion.

[better]

1. Well said. I may indeed be guilty of some degree of this myself.

I do think, however, that there could be something to be gained from having frank discussions about where those of us on both sides of the gun-control / gun-rights debate can come together in agreement and support getting something done.

There are some ideas I oppose, but universal background checks, for example, are definitely not among them.
Nor is regulating bump-fire stocks like we do full autos, or possibly even banning them outright.

My personal inclination is that perhaps the most effective thing we can pursue is universal background checks.
And not just universal, but also and in my opinion even more importantly, recurring.

Thoughts?

[jberryhill]

2. Oh, did the Girandoni rifle brigade already show up?

They crack me up.

An utterly unreliable and unwieldy air rifle that gets trotted out in these discussions. smh.

[MineralMan]

4. Even the puckle gun.

For Jebus' sake.

[mcar]

3. Thank you

[MineralMan]

5. It is my sincere pleasure.