Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

[edgeworthy]

Firstly, you betray the game here by saying guns shouldn't be treated as a right. That attitude is part of the core issue so many have on the Right with ANY compromise, because at the end of the day such a fundamental underlying disagreement means that no compromise can be trusted to hold, since you don't think it should be a right.

Uh no you are lying he specifically said ...

Guns really should be treated as a right.

Its right there in the very post you quoted!?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

“Shall not be infringed” is right there in the Constitution. And the Founding regarded that as applying to citizens having their own warships.

 

[Blasterbot]

It's one of the hardest issues when dealing with this. Guns really should be treated as a right. I can have my driver's license suspended for all manner of things, and that is much more critical to my survival than a gun is. People can be put on a no-fly list for basically anything. No due process.

No right is unlimited. It's about finding a balance. We need guns for protection, but protection is also... trying to make sure dangerous people who shouldn't have them, don't.

kinda. but it is supposed to require due process to abrogate someone's rights. It should not be such that after a break up some bitter ex can call the cops and say he is a crazy guy who is a danger to himself and others resulting in the police busting down his door and killing him in the process of taking away his god given rights without trial. most gun laws do nothing but put arduous barriers to owning firearms for those who follow the law. they never solve anything.

 

[evilchumlee]

Firstly, you betray the game here by saying guns shouldn't be treated as a right. That attitude is part of the core issue so many have on the Right with ANY compromise, because at the end of the day such a fundamental underlying disagreement means that no compromise can be trusted to hold, since you don't think it should be a right.

It is one of the core issues, absolutely. Guns absolutely should not be a right. That doesn't mean they need to be banned, or people can't have them, but treating them as a right is absolute nonsense.

Regardless, you compare owning guns to driver's license and the no-fly list. These are not comparable ideas. For instance, you do not actually need a driver's license to own or operate a car, you only need to it to be allowed to operate a car on public roads. So long as you're just on your private property with a car you can literally do anything you want with it, drive it around, etc. You can also sell it, trade it, modify it, etc. without having a license. The comparable thing is requiring licenses to CARRY a firearm in public, which many states have.

My comparison was less nuts and bolts and a comparison of importance... I have never once in my 38 years of life needed to carry a gun in a public space. I NEED to drive my car on public roads, every single day, in order to work and provide for myself. And yet, I have absolutely zero right to a car. Driving a car is a privilege that can be revoked at any time. We're talking about two different things there, but I acknowledge the point.

To address the specific issue of carrying a firearm in public, it's also something I don't think needs to be banned but it should be heavily regulated with licensing, registration, a minimum proof of training required, and insurance carried. Carrying a gun shouldn't be a laissez faire situation, it should require an amount of dedication.

As to the no-fly list, that also flies in the face of the Due Process clause and is Unconstitutional as fuck and should be shut down just on those facts alone. The problem is a good court case hasn't come up yet, but when it finally does I expect the entire thing to get blown to pieces by the Supreme Court.

That's where the core issue is. You have no right to fly. Due process doesn't really apply. Any attempt to actually control our gun issue is hampered by guns being a vaguely guaranteed Constitutional right, even though the wording is so incredibly vague and is the only amendment with a qualifier... not to mention the historical context has long since passed.

Going by a strict definition, Constitutionally "The People" refers to the US Government. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The People absolutely can keep and bear arms and have always been able to. We have the greatest military in the world. We, the people, are very well armed.

As such, your examples are both quite flawed, one is also a Due Process clause violation that should be shut down and as such, to me, one policy that fails the Due Process clause doesn't justify further policies that violate it.

One of my issues is the interpretation of "Due Process". I don't think that due process has to be "criminal case in front a jury represented by lawyers". Rather, it's due process under the law. If a law is created that allows x thing to be decided by a judge, due process is followed by bringing x thing before a judge.

My compromise to that is that I believe that such a judgement should absolutely be able to be challenged.

Its right there in the very post you quoted!?

That was a typo, in all fairness. It should have read "shouldn't". Guns shouldn't be a right. That doesn't mean the death squads need to come and take everyone's guns. They should just be treated as an object that nobody has an intrinsic right to have, but can, so long as they keep with the regulations of having them.

EDIT -

ALL THAT BEING SAID, and I understand people are only going to harp on me thinking guns shouldn't be a right (or, they should be, the government should absolutely be able to have guns. "the people". Yes. We do need "a well-regulated militia". Agreed.) I want to reiterate that... I don't think we should ban guns, or come to take your guns. We do absolutely have an out of control gun violence problem in this country that simply ignoring, or just say "MORE GUNS!" will not solve. Something needs to be done.

Actually one of the few things I think did Trump did well. He was the first President in a long time to do literally anything about gun control. Got my respect there.

 

[Abhorsen]

It is one of the core issues, absolutely. Guns absolutely should not be a right. That doesn't mean they need to be banned, or people can't have them, but treating them as a right is absolute nonsense.

No, it isn't nonsense. It comes out of the basic right to self defense. You have a right to self defense, and the tools to do so. Currently, that's guns. That's why it's a right: it's the policy implementation of a moral right to self defense. It's far more important morally than the right to fly, or some such.

Going by a strict definition, Constitutionally "The People" refers to the US Government. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The People absolutely can keep and bear arms and have always been able to. We have the greatest military in the world. We, the people, are very well armed.

No, it absolutely doesn't. Not at all. The people has always referred to the citizenry. We aren't communist. Maybe you could have brought an argument with the militia part, but not the people.

For example, look at the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

It was known to be about the people in the US, not about the government having additional power.

One of my issues is the interpretation of "Due Process". I don't think that due process has to be "criminal case in front a jury represented by lawyers". Rather, it's due process under the law. If a law is created that allows x thing to be decided by a judge, due process is followed by bringing x thing before a judge.

If that were the case, how could laws be overturned because of a lack of Due Process? In fact, due process means a wide variety of things, depending on circumstance, but usually means a judicial process of some sort.

 

[evilchumlee]

No, it isn't nonsense. It comes out of the basic right to self defense. You have a right to self defense, and the tools to do so. Currently, that's guns. That's why it's a right: it's the policy implementation of a moral right to self defense. It's far more important morally than the right to fly, or some such.

You absolutely have an intrinsic right to self defense. There is no intrinsic right to any particular method of self defense.

No, it absolutely doesn't. Not at all. The people has always referred to the citizenry. We aren't communist. Maybe you could have brought an argument with the militia part, but not the people.

The US government and People are one in the same. The government is the people, the people are the government.

The 2nd Amendment is a mess and always has been. It wasn't agreed upon when it was written and had to be written in such an awkward way as to purposefully be vague.

The historical reason for its existence is because the founding fathers did not want to keep a standing army, seeing that as tyranny. Therefore, we needed militias ready to go to defend the nation when needed. "The people" needed to be armed and trained to fight for the government... not against it. We no longer need that. The purpose of the amendment has lapsed.

It didn't become a personal right until an activist court in the 20th century made it so.

If that were the case, how could laws be overturned because of a lack of Due Process? In fact, due process means a wide variety of things, depending on circumstance, but usually means a judicial process of some sort.

Because the due process of that law was not respected.

Not everything is a jury trial... there are many, many things that just go before a judge.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

This whole conversation misses the forest for the trees to my mind, in much the same way discussions about knife crime can be had. Much of the crime is driven by the “gangsta” culture rife in ethnic minority communities, and among the young in general. Crush that, put the broken nuclear family back together, and you remove a great deal of the impetus for that.

As for school shootings, alongside making hideous examples of school shooters to remove any glamour or glory in their act, attend to the absolutely ruinous state of mental health in the US so these basket cases stop falling through the cracks.

 

[Abhorsen]

You absolutely have an intrinsic right to self defense. There is no intrinsic right to any particular method of self defense.

Correct, but wrong in what you try to imply from it. The constitution doesn't grant a right to a particular weapon. But instead, you have a right to an effective self defense. And far and away the most effective self defense is guns. That's why the right is "to bear arms" not a right to guns. You have a right to the tools that would work for self defense, not a particular subset. Hence why personally, I'd say that banning nunchuks is actually completely fine, constitutionally speaking: they are a shit self defense tool. But a firearm has frequently been found to be the most effective self defense tool. So banning that would not be okay.

A hundred years from now, if we all have reflector shields that only adults can wear, which make firearms ineffective? Then firearms would stop being a right, but the reflector shields would be, along with whatever else would be practically used.

The US government and People are one in the same. The government is the people, the people are the government.

No. This is completely wrong and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the constitution works. Again, look at the ninth amendment.

We are not a communist country. The Government is not what they meant when they talked about the people. In fact, they clearly talk about the government when they mention the government ("Congress shall make no law"), and are very clear that they use "people" when they mean the citizenry ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" when talking about who votes for representatives. This is different than the original plan for voting for senators. Or "The right of the people to peacefully assemble" doesn't mean the right of the government to assemble, but the citizens).

This is basic constitution 101 stuff. If you can't parse what was meant originally by "people" you have no basis commenting on the rest of the document.

The historical reason for its existence is because the founding fathers did not want to keep a standing army, seeing that as tyranny. Therefore, we needed militias ready to go to defend the nation when needed. "The people" needed to be armed and trained to fight for the government... not against it. We no longer need that. The purpose of the amendment has lapsed.

It didn't become a personal right until an activist court in the 20th century made it so.

This is also just, completely, completely wrong, and is actually a revisionist view of history.

This law article goes into why:
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2825&context=lawreview

Because the due process of that law was not respected.

Not everything is a jury trial... there are many, many things that just go before a judge.

No, you didn't read what I said. A Law was overturned by a lack of due process. If so, that means that enacting a law isn't due process.

I didn't say a jury trial was needed. I actually explicitly avoided saying that, because that isn't what due process requires.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm going to hop in a bit here.

It is one of the core issues, absolutely. Guns absolutely should not be a right. That doesn't mean they need to be banned, or people can't have them, but treating them as a right is absolute nonsense.

Why? I still haven't heard you state your case regarding this.

I have never once in my 38 years of life needed to carry a gun in a public space.

Then you have been blessed.

Carrying a gun shouldn't be a laissez faire situation, it should require an amount of dedication.

I agree that everyone carrying a gun is responsible for what they do with that firearm, and they should dedicate time to its use. Where we differ is that it should be a private affair, not one mandated by the state.

We do absolutely have an out of control gun violence problem in this country that simply ignoring, or just say "MORE GUNS!" will not solve. Something needs to be done.

Sorta. Is there gun violence? Yes. Not sure what it would take to make that 'out of control' in your mind.

I will state that every where gun controls go in place in the US, gun violence become MORE of a problem not less. When states and the feds remove gun regulations, and access is eased, gun violence typically goes DOWN. That's a proven fact.

So, what needs to be done?

In my mind, we need to rebuild several fundamentals that the Left has torn down. First, we have to rebuild the family by NOT having government promote broken homes. Second, we need to actually enforce our laws upon criminals. Third, we need to rebuild our mental health industry from the ground up.

 

[evilchumlee]

I'm going to hop in a bit here.

Why? I still haven't heard you state your case regarding this.

Guns being an enshrined right make them much more difficult to actually DO anything about, and there's quite frankly just no reason for it.

There are tons of objects that are important for daily life that are not rights. Hell, I have no right to food or water. I have no right to medical care. I have no right to a car, etc. There is just no logical reason for gun ownership to specifically be a right.

Then you have been blessed.

I agree that everyone carrying a gun is responsible for what they do with that firearm, and they should dedicate time to its use. Where we differ is that it should be a private affair, not one mandated by the state.

I understand why some would feel that way.

My problem is that I don't trust people, and this isn't the kind of thing that can be a suggestion. If everyone who carried a gun just... was super responsible and never used them in ways they shouldn't be used, we can do that.

They don't, and we can't.

It's like asking people "Don't murder people. But like, it's a private affair. You CAN murder people, just don't. Ok?"

Sorta. Is there gun violence? Yes. Not sure what it would take to make that 'out of control' in your mind.

I will state that every where gun controls go in place in the US, gun violence become MORE of a problem not less. When states and the feds remove gun regulations, and access is eased, gun violence typically goes DOWN. That's a proven fact.

That's not even remotely in any universe a proven fact. At all.

So, what needs to be done?

In my mind, we need to rebuild several fundamentals that the Left has torn down. First, we have to rebuild the family by NOT having government promote broken homes. Second, we need to actually enforce our laws upon criminals. Third, we need to rebuild our mental health industry from the ground up.

I think all of those would be great.

We also need to... deal with the ridiculously easy access to guns and have better ways to get them out of the hands of people who really should not have them.

A big step is some fairly simple things that need to be done on the Federal level. State is meaningless, because we can move freely between States... we need Federal licensing and registration. A big step is knowing where the guns are, and how has them. Background checks for any gun purchase. Limitations on exactly what can be purchased (as determined). To carry, proof of minimum training (not a 5 minute "class", if you're going to carry the gun in public, you need to prove that you are well trained and know how to use that gun in various situations.)

That, combined with red flag laws to help get the guns away from bad actors would go a long way. The things you mentioned, also great ideas, just in general.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Guns being an enshrined right make them much more difficult to actually DO anything about, and there's quite frankly just no reason for it.

That's exactly the point the founders were making when they enshrined gun ownership into the Constitution.

There is just no logical reason for gun ownership to specifically be a right.

It's the only way we have of defending ANY other right. You want free speech? How bout the right to assembly? What about your right to vote? All of that is dependent upon the government being afraid of an armed citizenry.

My problem is that I don't trust people, and this isn't the kind of thing that can be a suggestion.

Then get yourself a gun, and rely on yourself. It's one thing they're good for.

It's like asking people "Don't murder people. But like, it's a private affair. You CAN murder people, just don't. Ok?"

That's the case in ANY social contract. "Don't try and kill me and I won't kill you back."

That's not even remotely in any universe a proven fact. At all.

Let's see... Where do mass shootings take place? Oh yeah, gun free zones. When someone tries to do that in an area where guns are allowed...the shooter often is confronted and dealt with by a carrying citizen. It doesn't get on the news...for reasons...but crime is often averted by citizens with guns.

Also, the Police don't exist to prevent crime. They exist to investigate crime and attempt to clean up the mess by catching the criminal...which often doesn't happen. And lately, when it does, DAs in a lot of places just aren't prosecuting the crime...for reasons.

Armed citizens are the ultimate defense against others wanting to murder people. It's our "Just don't murder, OK."

We also need to... deal with the ridiculously easy access to guns and have better ways to get them out of the hands of people who really should not have them.

Why shouldn't a woman have easy access to a means to defend herself from a would be rapist?

A big step is some fairly simple things that need to be done on the Federal level. State is meaningless, because we can move freely between States... we need Federal licensing and registration. A big step is knowing where the guns are, and how has them. Background checks for any gun purchase. Limitations on exactly what can be purchased (as determined). To carry, proof of minimum training (not a 5 minute "class", if you're going to carry the gun in public, you need to prove that you are well trained and know how to use that gun in various situations.)

That, combined with red flag laws to help get the guns away from bad actors would go a long way. The things you mentioned, also great ideas, just in general.

Congratulations! You have just ensured that the government, or anyone with power or a lust for what you have, to take from you and remove your rights.

 

[LordsFire]

Going by a strict definition, Constitutionally "The People" refers to the US Government.

...No.

No on essentially every possible level.

How on earth did you come to this conclusion that is not just not true, but functionally the opposite of the truth?

 

[evilchumlee]

That's exactly the point the founders were making when they enshrined gun ownership into the Constitution.

False. Just think about that logically. "We're a new government trying to establish ourselves. Let's make it really clear that we actively want our people to rebel against us and make sure we can't get anything done about anything, ever."

They needed you to be armed to fight wars for them, not against them. It's actually explicitly illegal to take up arms against the government.

It's the only way we have of defending ANY other right. You want free speech? How bout the right to assembly? What about your right to vote? All of that is dependent upon the government being afraid of an armed citizenry.

That may have been true two centuries ago. It is not today. Hate it break to you Rambo but you're AR-15 isn't going to do anything against a modern military.

Then get yourself a gun, and rely on yourself. It's one thing they're good for.

Nothing particularly against it, but not something i'm interested in.

That's the case in ANY social contract. "Don't try and kill me and I won't kill you back."

So why make murder illegal then? Or make any attempts to prevent it? Should be a personal matter. No need for state intervention. Right?

See that's the problem with guns being, for some reason, treated differently. Lots of people don't try to kill anyone... and they get shot anyway.

Let's see... Where do mass shootings take place? Oh yeah, gun free zones. When someone tries to do that in an area where guns are allowed...the shooter often is confronted and dealt with by a carrying citizen. It doesn't get on the news...for reasons...but crime is often averted by citizens with guns.

That's not really true. Mass shootings happen basically anywhere.

"Good guys with a gun" actually stop very few, to the point of almost no, shootings. Best case scenario, they get the shooter after the shooter is done shooting... I mean, sure... but it's almost unheard of that they stop it.

"But... the MEDIA!" is a poor excuse. "It happens but like, nobody every knows about it." That's garbage.

Also, the Police don't exist to prevent crime. They exist to investigate crime and attempt to clean up the mess by catching the criminal...which often doesn't happen. And lately, when it does, DAs in a lot of places just aren't prosecuting the crime...for reasons.

That's why crime prevention is important. I'd rather help stop the crimes before they happen at all.

Why shouldn't a woman have easy access to a means to defend herself from a would be rapist?

There's plenty of ways to defend. Pepper spray is a pretty damn good defense. Stun guns.

Not sure why "firearm" is the only possible form of defense.

Congratulations! You have just ensured that the government, or anyone with power or a lust for what you have, to take from you and remove your rights.

They can do that no matter how many guns I have... I can have an AR-15. They have drones and cruise missiles.

 

[Rocinante]

False. Just think about that logically. "We're a new government trying to establish ourselves. Let's make it really clear that we actively want our people to rebel against us and make sure we can't get anything done about anything, ever."

They needed you to be armed to fight wars for them, not against them. It's actually explicitly illegal to take up arms against the government.



That may have been true two centuries ago. It is not today. Hate it break to you Rambo but you're AR-15 isn't going to do anything against a modern military.



Nothing particularly against it, but not something i'm interested in.



So why make murder illegal then? Or make any attempts to prevent it? Should be a personal matter. No need for state intervention. Right?

See that's the problem with guns being, for some reason, treated differently. Lots of people don't try to kill anyone... and they get shot anyway.



That's not really true. Mass shootings happen basically anywhere.

"Good guys with a gun" actually stop very few, to the point of almost no, shootings. Best case scenario, they get the shooter after the shooter is done shooting... I mean, sure... but it's almost unheard of that they stop it.

"But... the MEDIA!" is a poor excuse. "It happens but like, nobody every knows about it." That's garbage.



That's why crime prevention is important. I'd rather help stop the crimes before they happen at all.



There's plenty of ways to defend. Pepper spray is a pretty damn good defense. Stun guns.

Not sure why "firearm" is the only possible form of defense.



They can do that no matter how many guns I have... I can have an AR-15. They have drones and cruise missiles.

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan held off the US and retook the country in like 3 days after we left. mostly with Rusty AKs.

Fighting is going down around the world right now with conventional rifles.

Look up bundy ranch. They held off feds with rifles.

Yeah. An ar-15 is absolutely a valid and effective means to defend yourself.

 

[Cherico]

False. Just think about that logically. "We're a new government trying to establish ourselves. Let's make it really clear that we actively want our people to rebel against us and make sure we can't get anything done about anything, ever."

They needed you to be armed to fight wars for them, not against them. It's actually explicitly illegal to take up arms against the government.



That may have been true two centuries ago. It is not today. Hate it break to you Rambo but you're AR-15 isn't going to do anything against a modern military.



Nothing particularly against it, but not something i'm interested in.



So why make murder illegal then? Or make any attempts to prevent it? Should be a personal matter. No need for state intervention. Right?

See that's the problem with guns being, for some reason, treated differently. Lots of people don't try to kill anyone... and they get shot anyway.



That's not really true. Mass shootings happen basically anywhere.

"Good guys with a gun" actually stop very few, to the point of almost no, shootings. Best case scenario, they get the shooter after the shooter is done shooting... I mean, sure... but it's almost unheard of that they stop it.

"But... the MEDIA!" is a poor excuse. "It happens but like, nobody every knows about it." That's garbage.



That's why crime prevention is important. I'd rather help stop the crimes before they happen at all.



There's plenty of ways to defend. Pepper spray is a pretty damn good defense. Stun guns.

Not sure why "firearm" is the only possible form of defense.



They can do that no matter how many guns I have... I can have an AR-15. They have drones and cruise missiles.

 

[evilchumlee]

A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan held off the US and retook the country in like 3 days after we left. mostly with Rusty AKs.

"held off the US"

I mean. I guess you could call it that.

Sure, if there's a tyrannical government and I want to go live in a cave for two decades, taking some pot shots at them an annoying them enough until they get tired and go home... sure.

Look up bundy ranch. They held off feds with rifles.

Which was an absolute travesty. That should have been an absolute bloodbath. Those traitors should have never been allowed to walk away. That wasn't "winning", that was political cowardice.

Also not for the nothing but like, i'm not willing to kill US police officers or military servicemen. Who do you think "the government" is? I support our police and our military.

I totally support the government keeping stocks of weapons available for the event of a foreign invasion to be distributed. 100%.

EDIT -

What was needed to be said has been said. Kinda rerailed the thread and I apologize. I'm going to move on, this has gone WAY off the rails from the topic.

 

[Rocinante]

"held off the US"

I mean. I guess you could call it that.

Sure, if there's a tyrannical government and I want to go live in a cave for two decades, taking some pot shots at them an annoying them enough until they get tired and go home... sure.



Which was an absolute travesty. That should have been an absolute bloodbath. Those traitors should have never been allowed to walk away. That wasn't "winning", that was political cowardice.

Also not for the nothing but like, i'm not willing to kill US police officers or military servicemen. Who do you think "the government" is? I support our police and our military.

I totally support the government keeping stocks of weapons available for the event of a foreign invasion to be distributed. 100%.

EDIT -

What was needed to be said has been said. Kinda rerailed the thread and I apologize. I'm going to move on, this has gone WAY off the rails from the topic.

If it comes down to hanging out in caves, then so be it. The Taliban won that conflict by outlasting the US, with a bunch of Rusty AKs.

Your opinion on bundy ranch, it's disgusting nature aside, is another example that ARs work. Whether you like it or not.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@evilchumlee I brought you here b/c this is the right place for that conversation.

False. Just think about that logically. "We're a new government trying to establish ourselves. Let's make it really clear that we actively want our people to rebel against us and make sure we can't get anything done about anything, ever."

They needed you to be armed to fight wars for them, not against them. It's actually explicitly illegal to take up arms against the government.

Welcome to the exact reason the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment for. They wanted to make sure that, if the USA ever became tyrannical, the people had means to overthrow the govt. It might feel backwards, but that's exactly why they did it.

That may have been true two centuries ago. It is not today. Hate it break to you Rambo but you're AR-15 isn't going to do anything against a modern military.

You don't need to be Rambo. The AR15 or ANY rifle will do great at removing threats.

Nothing particularly against it, but not something i'm interested in.

Then who is going to protect you and yours?

So why make murder illegal then? Or make any attempts to prevent it? Should be a personal matter. No need for state intervention. Right?

See that's the problem with guns being, for some reason, treated differently. Lots of people don't try to kill anyone... and they get shot anyway.

B/c murder removes the rights of others without their consent.

For your latter statement...why should I have my rights revoked because someone else broke the law?

That's not really true. Mass shootings happen basically anywhere.

"Good guys with a gun" actually stop very few, to the point of almost no, shootings. Best case scenario, they get the shooter after the shooter is done shooting... I mean, sure... but it's almost unheard of that they stop it.

"But... the MEDIA!" is a poor excuse. "It happens but like, nobody every knows about it." That's garbage.

I'll dig up more evidence for you when I have more time.

That's why crime prevention is important. I'd rather help stop the crimes before they happen at all.

We can both agree to that. I would much rather not have to shoot someone that's trying to hurt me or those around me. However, I will not give up my ability to defend myself or my House b/c it makes you feel better.

There's plenty of ways to defend. Pepper spray is a pretty damn good defense. Stun guns.

Not sure why "firearm" is the only possible form of defense.

Dude...pepper spray doesn't work that well, and there's LOTS of things that will prevent stun guns from being effective. These are NOT reasons to give up guns.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be used as deterrents, but I'll never tell my wife or daughter to pull pepper spray on anyone threatening their life. It's WAY TOO IFFY.

They can do that no matter how many guns I have... I can have an AR-15. They have drones and cruise missiles.

I'm not even going to address this. There are too many ways to counter tech to count. It's one reason these things didn't auto-win Afghanistan for us.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

It is one of the core issues, absolutely. Guns absolutely should not be a right. That doesn't mean they need to be banned, or people can't have them, but treating them as a right is absolute nonsense.

It's a fundamental right because the Founding Fathers hated Government and wanted the citizenry to have the power to force a government to humble itself before them if said government strayed. This was to the point where people like Jefferson wanted civil wars every 75 years just to keep the system honest.

No single American citizen should be denied the right to own any firearm of any sort, or body armor, or really anything.

If the Federal Government has it, an American citizen should have a better version of it.

Self defense was a common sense concept that the Founders believed only the mentally ill or criminals would disagree with.

So the 2A ain't even about it.

It's about the right and duty of the private citizen to uphold the constitution.

The US government and People are one in the same. The government is the people, the people are the government.
.

Bruh, the people who wrote the constitution routinely referred to Governments as Satanic, necessary evils and Government officials as rodents.

The fuck are you talking about? These people were minarchists. The very notion that they'd consider the people and the states anything but separate and competing entities is an absurdist communist notion.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

False. Just think about that logically. "We're a new government trying to establish ourselves. Let's make it really clear that we actively want our people to rebel against us and make sure we can't get anything done about anything, ever."

...These guys said it was okay for Americans to own warships and bombard American ports if City Officials got too dirty.

They were consistently dehumanizing Governments and Government servants in nearly all their language.

Which was an absolute travesty. That should have been an absolute bloodbath. Those traitors should have never been allowed to walk away. That wasn't "winning", that was political cowardice.

The travesty was that the Bureau of Land Management wasn't immediately shutdown following their blatant act of domestic terrorism against an honest family of citizen ranchers.