I can't tell if this is implying that guns should be banned because weapons in the founding fathers' time were so ineffective that it wasn't a risk to allow people to have them unlike modern day, or if this is implying the exact opposite conclusion. Let's all pretend that it's the one we agree with and skip the flamewar.
@ReeseBobby, I agree
@disappointment , to disagree
@disappointment , lol nvm
@disappointment , but real talk
@disappointment , jk
@ReeseBobby, I think it was just meant to be funny not be a social commentary or at least that’s how I took it
@ReeseBobby, I preferred your post when I thought it said skip to the flamethrower.
@Sarcastic Wombat, wait it didn't? Aw man it took me like three minutes to put this thing on
@ReeseBobby, Why can't there be a compromisal solution.
@Jdrawer, because in truth there Is no real reason for a compromise. Bearing arms is legal no point arguing it in anything but the Supreme Court. It’s currently one of the basic rights that all Americans have. I don’t own one myself but I don’t in truth see much good that banning guns will do so I don’t see the point in arguing it. All that will happen is it will go from those who got their guns illegally being the only civilians with guns and they won’t stop purchasing guns just because they get banned. Long story short it would be a very tough uphill battle to fight to change the second amendment. Time and money would be better spent on just about any other issue then on this one. My stance on all issues are I only argue against them if I have a definitive way to fix it. People say “we should fix the second amendment” when you ask how they either say they don’t know or just say make it more difficult but rarely give a new idea how to go about doing that.
@George Feeny, and before anyone thinks I’m arguing for gun laws to be revoked or something stupid like that rest assured I am not. I am nearly pointing out that just saying we should increase or decrease gun regulations is stupid. If you can’t list at least one definitive thing you would change and then explain why that change will benefit the country as a whole you have no reason to be arguing and should instead be researching your stance
@George Feeny, also I won’t debate the merits either good or ill with anyone. I think banning guns would be stupid but I don’t have any concrete ideas as to how to make it better so I stay out of debates other then just stating my opinion.
Need me a powered wig for home protection
@But fvck it, battery, plug-in, or solar?
I get the reason for the amendment, and I love weapons of all shapes and sizes (I have so many swords and knives, can’t get enough), but I can’t help but think tech has outpaced the whole raise arms against a corrupt government thing. What chance do you have against an Apache helicopter? It has guns AND missiles.
Then again I bet they never expected a trebuchet.
@Nosferatu Zodd, punkin chunkin
@Nosferatu Zodd, You have the chance that the pilot will have moral problems shooting at citizens.
Geez, I just tumbled down a 15 minute rabbit hole of searches on triangular bayonets and their history of use in war. My stomach hurts.
@Breezy Lunchbox, maybe you shouldn't have taken that tumble
Explain the puckle gun, it was invented before the Constitution was written!