Which is why opposing gun control makes no sense. If you’re already taking firearm safety seriously then having regulation that verifies you’re taking firearm safety seriously would make little to no difference to you.
If an American is against gun control I immediately assume they’re not really a responsible gun owner.
Because gun control is often written by people who don’t understand guns and by people who don’t like guns. They also often are written and proposed without much input from gun owners. I’m not against gun control necessarily, but many attempts are just stupid legislation that would be ineffective in meeting it’s goal of decreasing gun crimes.
So many gun control laws proposed are unenforceable such as storage laws.
Assault weapon bans use arbitrary features to distinguish them. And many of these are features that make them easier to control when shooting, which inherently means they are more dangerous now.
I really think there is a huge cultural issue around guns that needs to be addressed. Guns are thought of and treated as a solution to disagreements rather than something to protect life and liberty. A solution that is as equally valid is running away or compromising. These are made worse with rhetoric like “fuck around and find out” or " come try that here."
We also have media that has been purposely trying to divide the populace and make them afraid. Afraid when they leave their house all the time and afraid that someone is going to come into their house.
We have a lot of issues surrounding guns. And while gun control will be a feature of tackling it, so much more needs to be done to address it.
The issue is there is that gun laws are difficult to get rid of even when it’s proven to be ineffective or unneccesary
One time I ordered something and I had to go through the same paperwork and as if I was buying a belt fed machine gun, including a $200 tax stamp, paperwork, fingerprints etc. After that was filed I went home and waited seven months for the ATF to process and approve that paperwork. Not a wait period, that’s just how long it takes for the bureucracy takes to function.
After all that time I finally was able to take home what I had bought I, a suppressor for a .22 pistol so I can teach new shooters without shouting through their hearing protection. That rule has been in place since the 1930s
Luigi Mangione’s suppressor was 3D printed and the only crime I’ve ever seen committed with one
Electronic hearing protection is fantastic for just this reason; no one has to shout. (Except at indoor ranges where you have to double up. I’d forgotten how loud those get…)
Indoor is obnoxious! Electronic is great but not very common with new shooters. Why spend the extra money if you don’t know if you’ll use it very often?
Which is why opposing voter reform makes no sense. If you’re already taking voter security seriously, then having regulations that verifies that you’re taking voter security seriously would make little to no difference to you.
If an American is against voter reform I immediately assume that they’re not really serious about voter security.
See how dumb that sounds?
Rights are rights, even if you are irresponsible with the use of those rights. Moreover, the majority of attempts to enact gun control are largely about either banning firearm types entirely–e.g., semi-automatic rifles–or making it exceptionally hard and expensive to exercise your constitutionally guaranteed right.
I’d say the right to vote is more important than the right to bear arms. I’d say that’s especially true given the damage votes have caused in the last 3 months, versus the remedies applied by the second amendment to that damage.
What kind of ‘voter reform’ are you talking about?
Are you talking about making formal requirements for things that are already core safety practices that we really need all voters to do so that they don’t accidentally kill someone?
Which is why opposing gun control makes no sense. If you’re already taking firearm safety seriously then having regulation that verifies you’re taking firearm safety seriously would make little to no difference to you.
If an American is against gun control I immediately assume they’re not really a responsible gun owner.
Because gun control is often written by people who don’t understand guns and by people who don’t like guns. They also often are written and proposed without much input from gun owners. I’m not against gun control necessarily, but many attempts are just stupid legislation that would be ineffective in meeting it’s goal of decreasing gun crimes.
So many gun control laws proposed are unenforceable such as storage laws.
Assault weapon bans use arbitrary features to distinguish them. And many of these are features that make them easier to control when shooting, which inherently means they are more dangerous now.
I really think there is a huge cultural issue around guns that needs to be addressed. Guns are thought of and treated as a solution to disagreements rather than something to protect life and liberty. A solution that is as equally valid is running away or compromising. These are made worse with rhetoric like “fuck around and find out” or " come try that here."
We also have media that has been purposely trying to divide the populace and make them afraid. Afraid when they leave their house all the time and afraid that someone is going to come into their house.
We have a lot of issues surrounding guns. And while gun control will be a feature of tackling it, so much more needs to be done to address it.
The issue is there is that gun laws are difficult to get rid of even when it’s proven to be ineffective or unneccesary
One time I ordered something and I had to go through the same paperwork and as if I was buying a belt fed machine gun, including a $200 tax stamp, paperwork, fingerprints etc. After that was filed I went home and waited seven months for the ATF to process and approve that paperwork. Not a wait period, that’s just how long it takes for the bureucracy takes to function.
After all that time I finally was able to take home what I had bought I, a suppressor for a .22 pistol so I can teach new shooters without shouting through their hearing protection. That rule has been in place since the 1930s
Luigi Mangione’s suppressor was 3D printed and the only crime I’ve ever seen committed with one
Electronic hearing protection is fantastic for just this reason; no one has to shout. (Except at indoor ranges where you have to double up. I’d forgotten how loud those get…)
Indoor is obnoxious! Electronic is great but not very common with new shooters. Why spend the extra money if you don’t know if you’ll use it very often?
Which is why opposing voter reform makes no sense. If you’re already taking voter security seriously, then having regulations that verifies that you’re taking voter security seriously would make little to no difference to you.
If an American is against voter reform I immediately assume that they’re not really serious about voter security.
See how dumb that sounds?
Rights are rights, even if you are irresponsible with the use of those rights. Moreover, the majority of attempts to enact gun control are largely about either banning firearm types entirely–e.g., semi-automatic rifles–or making it exceptionally hard and expensive to exercise your constitutionally guaranteed right.
I’d say the right to vote is more important than the right to bear arms. I’d say that’s especially true given the damage votes have caused in the last 3 months, versus the remedies applied by the second amendment to that damage.
What kind of ‘voter reform’ are you talking about?
Are you talking about making formal requirements for things that are already core safety practices that we really need all voters to do so that they don’t accidentally kill someone?