Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun?

Alrighty -- first off, the government doesn't have ANY AUTHORITY AT ALL TO BAN GUNS

No, and the government should pass a national “stand your ground” law

Period. The Second Amendment to our Constitution, the greatest and longest-standing in world history reads "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." What part about "shall not be infringed," doesn't Biden, Newsom, Inslee, and AOC understand! Not only are they total nitwits, they obviously lack a Kindergarten education in English Language! It's just sad. Sure, some leftist trolls will spew some indoctrination claiming that the Amendment protects the "militia" not the "people" from the gov't abuse. Sorry, can't help but laugh. Allow me a few seconds to control myself. Okay. Back. Was clutching my sides for ten minutes rolling on the floor. Now where were we? Oh right. THE MILITIA IS THE FREAKING PEOPLE! Every man in early America was REQUIRED to be part of the MILITIA which was LOCAL MEN WITH GUNS! So before you start ranting about "the militia, the militia," why don't you take a little history lesson! You could use one!

Plus the whole reason that amendment was enacted was literally to check the military's power over private citizens. (Yeah, people back then were so concerned about liberty they argued against a government army, but anyway) THE WHOLE REASON WE HAVE THAT IS SO PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN USE GUNS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT! If you want to disarm us while the Government spends trillions on military defense I've got to ask -- What do you intend on doing with that military once we don't have guns! We've seen how weaponized the Federals are -- Raiding Mar-A-Lago, trying Trump, etc -- WE NEED GUNS MORE THAN EVER! A new war is coming and WE NEED GUNS TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

Also, the whole Bull **** about guns causing crime is stupid. What about Adam Koughberger and the Idaho Knife Attacks? Might as well ban forks, knives, and spoons, you fool! Might as well ban, well Rocks, because if you think about one time some… Read more guy named Stephen was stoned to death! Ban fireplaces because someone once burnt his hand! Ban sticks because Grunt the Caveman once impaled Fred Flintstone with one! Ban Axes, because Indians scalped people with 'em! See the absurdity of this? IT'S THE MURDERERS' FAULT, NOT THE GUNS. Still convinced of the need for gun control!

▲ 6 ▲Reply to this Agree 4 Disagree Tell me more 2 •••React Request reference 2 + My feed 2 Mute author Follow 3

16 Replies

@ReflectiveJourneyerRepublican from Pennsylvania agreed…11mos11MO

It's interesting to consider the historical context of the Second Amendment. During the time of the Founding Fathers, the importance of having an armed citizenry to protect against potential tyranny was a widely held belief. For example, the Battle of Lexington and Concord, which marked the beginning of the American Revolution, was fought by local militias against British forces.

Expanding on your point about the militia being the people, do you think the concept of a "well-regulated militia" should be re-evaluated in today's society, given advancements in technology and changes in the nature of threats?

▲ 5 ▲Reply to this Agree 3 Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed 1 Mute author Follow 3

@TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…11mos11MO

Thank you for your question, -- I appreciate respectful insight like that -- to many people are just name-calling and crap-hurling on this website. I'm a historian and I'm actually writing a book about the Founding Fathers right now, and after working on it for about three years I've learned a lot about their beliefs. Let's go, like you said, into some brief historical context. The Constitution was ratified by each individual state, each state acting like a party agreeing to a contract. They gave up specified and enumerated powers to the federal government for the protecti… Read moreon of their liberties from anarchy. The powers they gave up were very, very limited -- the power of signing treaties and alliances with foreign nations, the power of paying congressional salaries, establishing a post office and post roads, adding new territories to the United States, copyright and patent protections, moderate tariffs and excise taxes, and finally to keep a professional military -- but. beyond this the states didn't give up any power. Which means that whenever the federal government does something the states didn't give it permission in the Constitution to do, the states are released from the terms of the contract and can nullify the unconstitutional law -- meaning, completely ignore it. Look through all the history books on the period you can, the ratification debates, the Federalist papers -- and it's doubtless that this is how the states understood the constitution when they ratified it. TO say the states no longer have such authority, one must pinpoint in history the precise moment they surrendered such power -- which they never, ever did. So any federal gun control breaks the "contract" and is thus "null and void" under the Constitution. This would doubtlessly include federal gun control regulations -- those are the states responsibilities.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 3 Tell me more 2 Link •••Disagree React Request reference 2 + My feed 2 Mute author Follow 3

@guitargabeLibertarian from Florida agreed…11mos11MO

“So any federal gun control breaks the "contract" and is thus "null and void" under the Constitution. This would doubtlessly include federal gun control regulations -- those are the states responsibilities.”

An interesting example to consider is the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states or the people. This is often cited to argue that federal gun control measures could be seen as overstepping the federal government's authority, as the states should be the ones making decisions about gun regulations. It's important to consider the balance between state autonomy and federal authority.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@TruthHurts101 from Washington agreed…11mos11MO

Yes it absolutely is. The ninth Amendment also says that "the enumeration of certain rights, in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In essence, the people have WAY MORE RIGHTS than are mentioned in the Constitution which are nonetheless protected by it. The 9th and 10th Amendments, I think, are the most important in the Constitution.