heybruce

Pick a lane and stay in it. Do you want to discuss gun deaths in general in the US and defend your false claim that people only care about assault rifle deaths? Or do you want to discuss assault rifles that are frequently used in large massacres? You lose all credibility when you jump back and forth between the two issues when you are losing the argument on one of them. It is difficult to enforce laws against shooting people when the shooters do nothing illegal until they start shooting people.

Provide credible sources to support your claim that the eastern regions were oppressed and Ukrainified.

Russian troll tactic. Once a false claim has been thoroughly debunked, let it rest a little while then resurrect it. There was no guarantee that NATO would not expand east. Numerous credible sources have made that clear, including then Soviet President Gorbachev. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Just as the Right to freedom of speech is limited with restrictions on libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., so the right to bear arms is limited. That's why the crazy neighbor down the street isn't allowed to build chemical weapons in his basement and to keep the kids off his lawn with landmines. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on principles, compromise, and the experiences the authors had at that time. The original Articles of Confederation had no provisions for a standing army, which the 18th century Americans considered a bigger threat to liberty than foreign powers. The US Constitution provided for raising a standing army, but not a permanent one: "The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . . .". https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C12_1_1/ However, as society, technology, and understanding of the real world improved, the principle of not having a permanent standing army changed. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree with that change. I'm also sure they would agree it's time for a change to the 2nd Amendment. The authors of the Constitution knew they couldn't predict the future and its needs. That's why they designed in mechanisms to change the Constitution as needed.

I could write many pages about the different historical context of guns in the late 18th century and today. I will just point out that if the authors of the US Constitution could have foreseen how cheap, lethal, and unnecessary guns would become, the 2nd Amendment would have been written very differently.

God given rights? Did Jesus preach about the right to bear arms? Is it in the Ten Commandments? Did the Garden of Eden have guns? Does any major religion worship a gun-toting deity? On what do you base your speculation that lives will be lost if there are fewer guns in society?

More children and teens are killed by firearms in the US than by any other cause: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/guns-leading-cause-death-children-teens-rcna25443 We care about all people, especially young people, who are killed by guns. Unfortunately it is so common that it only generates a brief period of national rage and discussion after an exceptionally murderous mass shooting, such as this one. What existing laws would have prevented this tragedy? What existing laws do you think are not being sufficiently enforced?

You mean like the time in 2019 when a far right white guy shot up a Texas Walmart because it had a lot of Hispanic customers and killed 23 people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting Other than that crime being declared a hate crime, which it clearly was, how was the narrative different?

LOL. The reason your one example made international news is because it is so rare. Prove me wrong; provide more examples.

The present Republican Party in now way represents the historical Republican Party. If you don't know that, then you don't know what the traditional Republican Party was until very recently. Which is probably why you don't know what a Republican In Name Only is.

That highly unusual event does not disprove my post.

This was Hillary Clinton's attorney. Trump's attorneys never lie. ????

A teacher with a hand gun might have been able to stop someone with a semi-automatic assault rifle, but it's unlikely. If the assault rifle had not been available this definitely wouldn't have happened.

Why bring up examples over 100 years old? You could point out that ten years ago the Republican Party supported free trade, a tough on Russia policy, and minimal government interference with business (none of the current Ron DeSantis-Mickey Mouse stuff). That Republican Party has changed completely, hasn't it? I consider Trump Republicans to be major RINO's.

Perhaps, but laws making it illegal to handle a gun in an irresponsible manner would make it easier for the police to justify taking the guns of irresponsible idiots. It also might make marginal idiots put a little thought into how well they handle and store their weapons. Laws with stiff penalties against carrying a weapon while under the influence might make some people think twice about their "constitutional carry" rights before going out for drinks. It wold also make it easier for police to arrest a drunk before he uses the gun he is carrying. Laws requiring people to have gun safety training and a rigorous background check before acquiring a gun, and to have a permit showing they have had the training and background checks, would make it easier for police to arrest the people and confiscate the weapons of people who shouldn't have weapons. That is how gun-happy Switzerland keeps their gun crime rate far below the US. Laws requiring prosecution for criminal negligence whenever a person uses the "I didn't think it was loaded" excuse, and some high visibility prosecutions of grieving gun owners who accidently/idiotically shot a family member, might make more people realize that guns aren't toys and must be handled responsibly at all times. I agree that guns will never be eliminated in the US. But I would like to see laws limiting access to people who have shown they have training and not yet demonstrated they are irresponsible idiots or dangerously unstable. I would also like it to be easier for police to confiscate weapons in the possession of unqualified idiots.

Yet somehow limiting access to guns works well in many democracies that have low crime rates and don't have insurrections following elections.

No, burglars like to steal guns. They especially like to steal guns from unlocked cars. Just do a search on the words "gun stolen unlocked car" and you will get plenty of links. It's so common it only makes local news sources, if that. And these are only the stolen guns that are reported. How do the guns rights people feel about laws requiring people to properly secure their weapons when not in use?

The link you provided is from BBC news. A quick check also found stories on USA Today and CBS via MSN. Probably many more out there for those who look. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/28/armed-woman-kills-man-firing-rifle-party/9975381002/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-woman-killed-man-who-fired-rifle-into-party-crowd-in-west-virginia/ar-AAXNupB

How many of those .223 round would you have to use to equal the stopping power of a single hit with a 30-30, 30-06, .308, or similar caliber with a hollow point hunting bullet? I have many friends and family who shoot wild boar whenever possible. I have never heard of any of them speak of a boar charging them. I did have one friend who had to climb a tree to escape an aggressive bear when he was hiking. He assumed he came between her and an unseen cub or cubs. BTW: A basic Remington bolt action weighs slightly more than a basic AR15, but is more rugged, reliable, accurate, easy to maintain and hard hitting. It also costs a fraction of the price of an AR15.

I disagree. I think the pro-gun crowd is always on the lookout for crimes prevented by a "good guy with a gun", and will advertise the heck out of them when they happen. However they don't happen very often. On the other hand,accidental shootings happen so often that most don't make the news. https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/ Many or most of the accidental shootings involve children. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1032725392/guns-death-children I'm not anti-gun, but would like to see laws clearly making it illegal to handle or store a weapon in an irresponsible manner, and have these laws aggressively enforced.

I see. You need one round to kill a deer, but you need a banana clip in case you need to go full Rambo on a bear or boar. Why not get a proper hunting rifle that can kill a deer, bear or boar with one shot? Perhaps a Remington bolt action; simple, rugged, reliable, accurate, hard hitting, and less expensive than a civilianized assault rifle. Any hunting you can do with an assault rifle can be done better and cheaper with a real hunting rifle.

Just to be clear, are you claiming that a .223 caliber is excellent for deer hunting even though it may take 15 or 30 rounds to kill the animal? Are you hunting deer or torturing them? Get a proper bolt action deer rifle and don't shoot unless you have a clear shot.

Every state that I know of requires people to have hunting licenses to hunt deer. Too bad that isn't true for "hunting" rifles as well. Do you think a high capacity magazine is necessary for deer hunting?

What game is hunted with a .223? Back when I hunted it was illegal to use such a small caliber for deer. Also, why would any hunting rifle need to have a capacity of more than four or five cartridges?

If your logic were applied during World War II, when the US funneled a large quantity of weapons and war materials to the USSR, then Nazi Germany would still exist and occupy eastern Europe up to Moscow and beyond.