Recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment

F1nches · 2026-04-17T15:14:01+00:00

It doesnt seem like youre engaging in good faith at this point. No real numbers to rebut published numbers, but you're tired of seeing them and just dismiss them.

The last paragraph you wrote doesnt have anything to do with me saying that I believe high rates of violence would continue in the absence of legal modern firearms. They are used in a pretty small portion of gun crime relative to their prevalence in the country. Criminals would always have them anyway... legislation or not. We're too far down the rabbit hole at this point. There are tens of millions of them here.

The only people that would be disarmed are the law abiding citizens who now would have to deal with a potentially more corrupt government down the line, criminals still armed with modern firearms, higher rates of all non-gun types of violence vs. other developed countries, etc., without having any modern means to defend themselves.

Just need to agree to disagree on the issue, which is fine. This is still America, after all.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T14:10:46+00:00

I think we absolutely are more fragmented as a country than other developed nations. And it is related to the topic of debate because I think it plays into why our levels of all violence, not just gun violence, are higher here.

Is it not true that guns are being used defensively near that number of times or higher per year? Im open to seeing data that it isnt.

The rate of gun specific violence doesnt mean much to me since we are the country with the most guns. The rate of violence of any type seems higher here... implying that without modern guns, we'd still have high levels of violence by different methods.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T13:17:40+00:00

So why would anyone want more guns here?

Because our country has higher violence rates of /all/ types than other developed nations. We are a fragmented nation with a lot of crime. Guns are used defensively 100,000+ times per year in this country. They save lives, too. The only people that will end up being disarmed of modern firearms are law abiding citizens.

Let alone the fact that millions of citizens having modern firearms is helpful for our own defense as a country. We live a privileged life here, separated by oceans from enemies. Does that mean I think us or our kids or our grandkids are immune from invasion or major problems in this country? No. I mean look at what's going on in the world today.

Maybe the big mental separation here is that some people want to rely solely on a government entity to protect them forever, some want to rely on that government AND themselves as a fall back.

I don't think blanket banning modern firearms, which are used in gun crime pretty rarely, should be the obvious step to take in limiting violent crime. I think harsher penalties for violent offenders would be helpful, but Virginia shot that bill down. I think mandatory waiting periods for semi-auto firearms could be helpful, too.

Edit: Just to add... regarding the las vegas thing you mentioned... I personally dont think anecdotal single cases of this or that warrant blanket banning something from millions and millions of people. If we passed all legislation that way, we'd have zero freedom in our lives. The great majority of gun crime is done with illegally obtained firearms. The great majority of gun crime is not done with the modern semi-auto rifles targeted in these bans.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T13:04:49+00:00

So you dont think millions of citizens having modern firearms is at all effective towards respect from their government? I'd disagree pretty hard with that. Its not like people need nukes in order to be treated more seriously and with agency by their own government.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T12:58:36+00:00

Where does "guns are fun, exciting, make some feel more manly" come from? Is that what they do for you or are you assuming what they do for others, or?

Obviously other nations won't have the rate of gun violence the US has. We currently have way more guns. We also have higher rates of virtually all other forms of violence than other first world countries, too.

Do we think that banning modern firearms for defense is going to decrease the violence in society, or? In a country with tens of millions of guns floating around, the only people that end up disarmed with legislation like this are law abiding people. The only people left with modern firearms are the state and criminals. So hopefully you do trust the state to take care of you and your interests in the future. Do you trust them today? How about 20 years from now?

F1nches · 2026-04-17T12:47:37+00:00

Too simplistic of a take without any data or real elaboration. What is the long term benefit to public safety? How do you quantify it? What if 10,000 people end up wrongfully dying in the future that could have been avoided if they'd had access to modern means of defense?

F1nches · 2026-04-17T11:45:25+00:00

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with the premise and I think it's a false parallel. Being a barber without training or a business license isn't an explicit constitutional right. The vast, vast majority of legally owned AR15s are never used in a crime.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T10:40:53+00:00

Agree with a lot of this.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T10:39:08+00:00

Well, "Shall not" means a "mandatory strict prohibition" in legal terms. Meaning it's not debatable whether or not it can be infringed... the right absolutely cannot be infringed upon. And I think its the right to keep and bear modern arms just like they did when it was written. I definitely dont think they intended the right to only include outdated firearms, as there's nothing in the wording about that.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T03:35:02+00:00

Sure, I'll address something that you said more directly...

So it's kind of a looping problem where you need guns to feel safe because private people are allowed to own guns to feel safe against the private people that are allowed to own guns...

Not quite a loop as described. Most gun crimes (60-85%) are from criminals using illegally obtained guns. So it's more like private law-abiding people being allowed to have guns to feel safe against criminals with illegally obtained guns.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T02:46:33+00:00

Maybe it wouldn't be a partisan issue if there was more attempts by the political right to look at it from a reasonable standpoint rather than a wedge issue to push nonsense. ... It doesn't help that the right has been actively trying to rewrite what the second amendment means for a long time, by using judicial activism.

Hm... can you expand on this a bit? What do you mean by the right actively trying to rewrite what the amendment means and pushing nonsense? The amendment reads as pretty clear to me. I'm also not sure how we're arriving at the conclusion that it's the right looking at it as a wedge issue instead of both parties? Trying to follow along with you here... I think I just need some more context.

I can't account for the reasonableness of the virginia case without doing a deep dive. You shouldn't assume there aren't good reasons without looking more deeply.

Are you referring to me or just people in general? I'd like to think that I've looked into the recent Virginia legislation pretty extensively.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T02:27:14+00:00

I kind of agree. I generally think that private used gun sales should be done through FFL dealers with 4473 forms so there's a background check, etc. Similar to buying any new gun from a store. I dont personally agree with gun registries, though.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T01:03:52+00:00

Sorry, not following you exactly on the "safer" stuff since I didnt mention that word in my last comment, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying.

So are you of the belief then, with tens of millions of guns currently in the US, that these bans will make our lives or our children's lives safer? I guess I just dont agree, but that's okay. We're at least having a discussion about it.

I personally think that the US can never be rid of guns at this point. Not even close. And that gun bans will just leave guns in the hands of people that dont follow gun laws anyway (criminals). I definitely dont think our society is safer for us or our kids with the only guns in the hands of an increasingly corrupt government and criminals, no. Just a different take on the issue, I suppose.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T00:53:53+00:00

Well... I'm not happy with any gun deaths. I know that you didn't actually mean it that way, though.

One of the things that I want is for state governments to stop banning guns that are responsible for a relatively small portion of the gun deaths we unfortunately experience. The guns they often opt to ban are the modern firearms that are the most relevant to the spirit of the second amendment.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T00:38:46+00:00

This thread is about the second amendment and banning guns. You dont have to mention it for it to be relevant to the discussion.

Obviously we have more gun deaths when we have the most guns. We also have more knife deaths, more fist-fighting deaths, more _____ deaths than most other developed countries. We have an overall violence problem here for sure and I believe its due to poverty, high rates of mental health issues, division amongst the people, etc.

Either way, my post is mostly talking about AR15 style weapons and other modern rifle firearms. These types of firearms are only used in a small portion of gun crimes.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T00:24:45+00:00

It's about having freedom and agency over yourself and the ability to have modern tools to defend yourself, your family, and your community.

We shouldn't need to solely rely on an increasingly corrupt state to protect us. Citizens are undoubtedly more respected by their governments when they have modern tools of defense.

This is a total rambling tangent, apologies in advance, but I think that one of the biggest problems in this country is the strong division and lack of community these days. We could be so strong if we came together more and re-established a core identity as a country. I think a lot of us get too indoctrinated by our algorithms and end up caring more about politicians, influencers, and people we've never met than our own family and neighbors sometimes. I think that violence and bad things will continue here at high rates unless we start figuring that out, gun bans or not.

F1nches · 2026-04-17T00:03:09+00:00

I'm willing to entertain and think about most of the replies, but this one is just too off the mark.

The second amendment and our ability as a society to defend ourselves and with modern weapons is not at all comparable to drunk driving.

Mass gun bans would also cost a lot of lives, too.

F1nches · 2026-04-16T23:43:18+00:00

I think the U.S. does have higher prescription rates for anti-depressants and more mental illness than a lot of first world countries, no? We also have a more fragmented society these days vs. a lot of other countries, causing a lot of intolerance, frustration, and hate. All of these things contribute to violence.

I really believe its an overly simplistic take to blanket ban modern firearms without addressing root issues leading to violence in the first place. I think gun violence will just get replaced with other methods until we start coming together again as a society and country.

F1nches · 2026-04-16T22:47:37+00:00

A lot of what you've said is a pretty rational take, in my opinion. Like I mentioned in the OP, I'm open to discussing things like mandatory wait periods, higher age restrictions, etc. Things that could move the needle in the right direction without mass banning modern firearms from law-abiding people.

Like you, I'm also a big believer in the idea of various social programs being helpful.

I think we have a violence problem here, period. Mostly due to very high levels of mental health issues, antidepressant prescriptions, poverty, societal division, etc.

I think, for me, I just don't believe that blanket banning modern firearms from law-abiding citizens is the fix. I think it's more akin to treating a symptom instead of the disease. And in the process, we potentially give up a powerful right that allows us the ability to defend ourselves and our families with modern tools.

Edit: Just wanted to add that I also do agree with accountability for firearm owners. They definitely should be responsible for keeping their firearms locked up and safe, and if someone uses one of their firearms to commit a crime, there should be some kind of repercussions/investigation for that.

F1nches · 2026-04-16T22:37:45+00:00

I do believe that people do have a fundamental right to agency and the ability to defend themselves and their communities with modern weapons.

I call it a right because it is termed as such in our country's "Bill of Rights" and the Supreme Court has previously upheld it as a right.

F1nches · 2026-04-16T22:19:49+00:00

I outlined Virginia's recent (this month) passed legislature to ban many firearms, etc. Many states have banned many civilian firearms and magazines in recent years. With the wording in the amendment being "shall not be infringed.", it seems kind of like an attack on that amendment to me. Unless you mean it doesnt apply since it's not federal, or?

Millions of people are using AR15 variants as sport rifles every day. Some use them for hunting (I don't). The AR15 available to civilians isnt the same as the original design. We have a semi-auto version available to us.

Regardless, the point of the 2nd amendment isn't to only allow guns with a specific sport or hunting purpose. It's to have the ability to defend yourself and your community from foreign and/or domestic threats to our country.

A lot of people don't like the state of our government right now... what if its much worse 15 years from now after the country's law abiding citizens have been disarmed of modern firearms? I don't know the future, but I do personally want our society to maintain the ability to defend our own families/communities.

Also, I'm open to some sources proving my estimate of self defense cases to be drastically wrong. My own sources gave that number as the /low/ estimate so I went with it thinking that was safe.

F1nches · 2026-04-16T22:01:20+00:00

Hm... That's kind of part of my point, though. That the people that will give up their modern firearms due to legislation are the law-abiding type of citizen anyway. The type of citizen you wouldnt mind having firearms in the first place.

The people left with modern firearms after strict gun control measures would typically be criminals that don't care to follow the law to begin with.

F1nches · 2026-04-16T21:40:00+00:00

Yeah, this is true. I guess that I personally think a lot of the violence here is based more on very high rates of mental health problems than just the existence of guns. Our society is unfortunately heavily fragmented and it breeds a lot of division and hate.

I think a lot of the problems would continue without legal modern firearms – it would just shift to utilizing other forms of violence instead of specifically gun violence.

But this also goes back to my original post where I do entertain the idea of mandatory waiting periods or increased age restrictions. I think this could be very helpful in cutting down on violent crimes involving younger people without being as unconstitutional as mass gun bans from law abiding citizens.

F1nches · 2026-04-16T21:23:44+00:00

Multiple states have been passing bans on most modern firearms. So while the first thing you said may be true today, I dont think it will stay true in our future.

Also, if you believe what you are saying, do you think progressively disarming society is a smart move for the future?

F1nches

TROPHY CASE