Is it time to talk about guns?

So let's review.

Pro gun legislation:
1. We already have gun legislation and guns are still around.
2. We've been hearing "They're going to take my guns" for, what, forty years now? Still a lot of guns around.
3. Automatic weapons are heavily restricted and are seldom used for evil purposes, yet there are still a lot of guns around.
4. Assault style weapons (look it up) have no legitimate purpose other than to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. They aren't needed for hunting, target practice, or self defense.
5. There is no need to violently overthrow our own government.
6. The second amendment was written to support the government as there was no standing army at the time.
7. The individual right to own a gun was not recognized by the Supreme Court until 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller.
8. Guns make it easier to kill people.


Anti gun legislation.
1. We have too many laws, adding another gun related law means they're going to take everyone's gun.
2. Everyone should be allowed to own a gun and carry a loaded weapon around anytime, anywhere. Any and all types of weapons should be allowed.
3.The Second Amendment was written so that individual citizens can disregard the laws of the state and overthrow the government.
4. Assault style weapons are needed for hunting, target practice, defense, and killing government employees. Also for overthrowing our own government.
5. The more guns and bullets you own, the safer you are.
6. There can not be a free legitimate Republic unless everyone owns guns. Many guns.
7. The only way to stop mass shootings is to arm everyone.
8. If someone pushes you in a Walmart parking lot, you don't have to retreat. Just shoot him, or her.
9. If we take away all guns, people will be killed in mass by baseball bats and kitchen knives anyway so why take away guns?

What did I leave out?

 

Looks like you don't know what you're talking about and can't formulate an intelligent response to my post.

 

Same old bullshit. Love it or leave it.
I heard that way back in the 60s.
Boring.

 

So since we haven't gotten any intelligent responses to my post about pro gun legislation verses anti gun legislation let's switch to the Second Amendment.

As I understand the pro gun people, the Second was written so that the public could overthrow the government by violent means, using any sort of gun they choose.
They don't seem to care what form of government democracy, representative republic, communist, socialist, monarchy, etc.; just so long as it's corrupt.
And they never seem to define who gets to decide what makes it corrupt, why it's corrupt, or how corrupt it has to be before they start shooting.
Also they never define what level of government they are talking about.

So let's concentrate on the federal government in our representative democratic republic as we have an excellent example to talk about.
Now, some of you may remember the insurrection of January 6, 2021. If you recall this is the one where a large group of men and women stormed the United States Capitol building in an effort to stop the ratification of the past presidential election. They intended to do this by an armed intimidation of Senators and Representatives and many called for the hanging of the Vice President, the kidnapping and probable execution of the Speaker of the house, and God knows what else. We won't get into the destruction and deaths that resulted at this time.

What I want to know is how many of you feel the insurrectionists should have been armed with firearms including assault weapons, hand grenades, and machine guns?
If we believe the Second Amendment was written to allow the overthrow of a corrupt government, then we must assume the insurrectionists should have been armed with those weapons and should have used them agaisnt the police, the Senators, House members and anyone else who stood in their way.
They should have been spraying bullets everywhere.

After all they believed the election was stolen from them. They had the support of the current president, and they believed the entire court system, the local election officials, most state governors, the electors, the Congress, and the House were all corrupt as were the police that were defending them.
As this was their belief and as they believe they have the right to violently overthrow any corrupt government and use firearms to shoot and kill any government official they feel is corrupt it stands to reason that they should have used firearms to seize the Federal Capitol building and force those government officials at that site to bend to the mob rule and nullify the past election. And they should have killed anyone who resisted by shooting them.

Now, how many of you Second Amendment right to overthrow the government by violence people agree?