Weapon bans that are unreasonable

@Sun I agree with you. There is no need for people to carry around a high powered assault rifle or automatic weapons. Do you need that much firepower to get a Mugger to stop mugging you? Like you said it probably be alot easier just give them your stuff. So true:( But "from light comes Darkness and darkness comes light which makes the universe go round"

I do agree with shotguns and handguns, though. Except 50 cal handguns and automatic shotguns. Some fights aren't worth fighting. As long as you're unhurt and the people around you are unhurt, then that is what matters. The problem I have is when someone breaks into your house and now your family is at risk. There are people out there who you care about more than yourself, so you'd be more inclined to engage in that situation.

@Love Wert @Sunbae Luckily the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting yourself from muggers. Nor does it have to do with hunting. There's ONLY one thing the 2nd amendment is there for and it is stated directly into its wording. "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." However everyone likes to stay in the ignorant mindset of, "could never happen here," or "our government wouldn't do that." And guess what? It ends up ALWAYS happening eventually. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And I'm willing to take the word of our forefathers who directly witnessed tyranny within a government, especially over the words of a bunch of millennial softies who've never experienced real adversity in their entire lives. I feel those who preach against the 2nd Amendment have become bored with the constant 1st world sentiment. There's so little to be upset about in the United States so people tend to make problems where there is none. The United States doesn't have a gun problem, it has a violent culture problem. Ronald Reagan said it best, "This all started when those of you who knew better, and are old enough to know better, allowed young people to think they can pick and choose the laws they obey as long as they do it under the banner of social protest." And if this isn't enough to convince you... That gun free zone didn't help Nice, France a single bit.

@Gud I do not believe a gun was used in the actual assault, but, high powered fire arms were indeed found on the truck along with grenades and other stuff. The argument I like using in support of firearms is that firearms are a form of equalizer, probably the best in the world, IMO. The counterargument I like using against firearms is that people take their own lives with them. But really, it all comes down to mental health :)

@Sunbae: I wasn't referring to the terrorist using firearms, although he did have a pistol on hand and died in a firefight with the police, I was referring to the fact that no civilian in France is allowed to carry a firearm. Thus any chance they had was taken away by their own government. I'm in support of our police officers but never forget that saying, "when seconds matter, the police are minutes away." It rings true, especially today. Though I can't really agree with the mental health idea. Sounds great on paper, however it is a VERY slippery slope because you're having the government decide who should be allowed their 2nd amendment right and who shouldn't. The very same government the 2nd amendment protects us against. It's a massive conflict of interest.

@Gud I mean the police cannot teleport haha! But yes, I'd rather have a means of defending myself and equalizing the ground in case it happens. I do think that people undermine how effective other tools can be as weapons, such ask blades, hammers, crowbars. I believe the study was 21 feet where the knife would have the advantage. But even if you shoot the assailant once, unless it's a headshot to the brain, he'll most likely still be alive and won't bleed out for at least a minute. In that minute, he's going to town on your body with a knife. It sounds good on paper, but I'm more so doing it on the side of suicide. But, do you not agree that the majority of mass shootings (I might start a thread about the definition of mass shooting vs. public mass shooting and how the media manipulates this another time) would've been prevented if we took care of our citizen's mental health?

@Sunbae: Well of course, but taking care of our citizen's mental health and restricting their rights are two entirely different things. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

They are different but do they not coincide with one another? It is like how the freedom of speech is limited in times of warfare as to prevent uprisings. Why the 4th amendment can be bypassed for those on parole, why the 6th amendment does not apply to all federal cases.

@Sunbae: This is where the disconnection begins. Felons aren't allowed their 2nd amendment and I'm fine with that, because there is always evidence and proof that leads to this. A felon has already been proven guilty of a crime. Mental illness doesn't quite work like that. If anything, it would adversely affect the treatment of mental illness in the United States. Do you realize how many would just avoid going to a doctor for mental health problems if they could get their rights restricted due to it? Those good intentions on gun restrictions quickly turn into punishing people for attempting to find help. Especially when suddenly they feel like they have to prove their lack of mental illness. It's guilty until proven innocent. When it comes down to it, you can't suggest laws and regulations based on how you think the world is supposed to work. This world will never be perfect, and it's time to understand that. The road to Hell is paved with good intention.

The reason why racial profiling isn't always illegal is because of statistics. Is it immoral? Hell yeah, but does it make sense? Well, I think that is for you to judge. But, if something like that can help find people who have a high latent potential for participating in criminal acts, and that is deemed constitutional, why shouldn't the high latency of becoming a mass shooter be taken into accoutn as well? I do believe it should be mandatory for gun owners to test their mental health biannually. I do not think it should be a choice. To be responsible does, or rather should incite a person to prove that they can handle it.