And again in 1934 and 1968 and 1986 and 1994, oh and also in 2019... Because "shall not be infringed." is so ambiguous.

All American men are in militias, so only dickless left wing soyboys can't own scary guns.

I provided you with the actual name of the federal act that provides all of that information. Instead of being a typical leftist, try reading something and knowing facts. Or just keep having emotions about things. Whatevs.

I’ve bought guns before and if you’re a gunowner too as it appears, then you know the answer to this. There are no training or skill requirements whatsoever to own a gun in this country.

Of course there isn't a requirement. There isn't a requirement to own a hammer or a knife either. Nor is martial arts a required training in public school. Did you have any kind of point?

The “Well-regulated militia” requirement only applies to guns, not those other things you mentioned. I know you guys love to talk about hammers and knives but guns kill a lot more people than those other implements.

The militia is regulated. The right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed. Learn to read.

It’s certainly not “well”-regulated and is basically not regulated at all.

It's over regulated. We used to have cannons and machine guns.

“Over-regulated.” I assume by this statement you mean that you support the private ownership of cannons and machine guns? Why? Those are essentially tools of war with virtually no self-defense value. And along those lines: what about bazookas and indeed armored humvees and tanks themselves?

The notion that you would support private ownership of such instruments of slaughter, especially without any training requirement whatsoever, is disturbing.

Try looking up "well regulated militia" as meant when the 2nd Amendment was written.

Here's some Englishe to American Google Translate for you:

"The right to get conscripted for defense of the state not only for free but with a working gun that you own and are able to to use proficiently shall not be infringed."

Learn to read sentences:
Understanding what the actual meaning of the words are,
The context they were written in,
Oh, and completely, AS a sentence, not just a specially selected segment plucked like the sweeter half of a cherry dipped in corn syrup shelac.

And so what if guns kill people? Lots of shit kills people. Assholes like you never want to ban "high capacity assault trucks." That's because you aren't scared of guns nor give a single shit about dead people. You hate guns because they can be used to kill communists. And that's why our ancestors made sure we could have them.

> "you hate guns because they can be used to kill communists."

I've been browsing social media politics sections for almost 3 years not, but this takes the cake for biggest load of bullshit I have ever seen.

I’ve been on social media awhile, and this site about a month. It’s incredible the stuff you see when you really challenge and flush out their beliefs. I’ve encountered right-wingers telling me what they are going to do to me in the “coming civil war.” Disturbing as it is, we have to know what we are up against.

>I want the power to take anything I want from disarmed Americans
>Can you believe how disturbing it is they want to stop me?

I said above that I’d permit hunting rifles and other such weapons. You know, the ones with actual economic utility.

You can still use those weapons to fight the imaginary war in your head. If the U.S. military ever wanted to take over the country, don’t worry, you’d die either way.

Trucks do useful shit, obviously, in fact they are essential to modern life. They’re worth enough to society to run the risk of allowing on the road (and people have auto insurance in case things go wrong). Guns just kill people. Not worth it.

They have some utility in hunting game so I’d allow registered hunters to have long-barreled rifles and other hunting-oriented firearms, but handguns and assault rifles? Those have to go.

Lol okay tiny stalin. Enjoy your weed dreams of dictatorship

Guns also do useful shit, like defending somebody's life. That's why cops have them. So if a person wants to own a gun or assault rifle because that is what is the most comfortable weapon for them to use for SELF-DEFENSE in a bad neighborhood, then that just has to go?!!! I don't own a gun, but if I ever did want to purchase one I would laugh in your face for trying to dictate what I "can" and "can't" own.

No worries, Mr Militiaguy, doubt KGB King Putin's buttboi Trump is gonna catch one from anyone, Secret Service being one law enforcement agency he hasn't disparaged yet n all.

Actually it is the human hand via commands by the brain that kills all of the time. It is called murder or war. The weapon used is useless without the hand controlling it.

OoOpsie dai-see!

Please explain what gives you the right to dictate what type of firearms responsible gun owners can and can't own to defend themselves and their family?

As any concerned citizen, I have the right let my representative in Congress know how I feel they vote on issues like this one. There are plenty of things in the world that governments restrict the use of because inordinate amounts of people are getting injured or killed, like driving under the influence, or hiking trails or beaches where the current is too strong. You don't need an AR-15 to protect your family. There are plenty of other guns that work just fine for that.

Lemme guess, you play on this site while setting your sites at your next ISIL notch on your belt, don'tcha, Call of Doodyboi?

Meh, I don’t lie awake at night thinking my gun under my pillow is the only thing protecting me from certain government enslavement like you guys do

Unless you're talking about me, myself and I?

Are you paranoid or not? That is the only question I’m posing.

the founders did a lot of things well in the constitution, that doesnt mean everything was going to be good in the future

We didn't, ya redneck.

Wow, guys. Extremism much? The comments on this page seem pretty distorted to me, from both sides. And stop with the name calling. It's contrary to the site's rules of use.

The point I wanted to make about the original meme, is that there seems to be this illusion that guns are the cause of mass shootings and violence, or that taking them away will solve those problems. Modern problems are not simplistic, they do not have just one solution or one answer. Their resolution requires multiple measures, ongoing monitoring, and will have multiple effects.

Banning guns will be ineffective. We are already seeing an increase in the reporting of knife attacks, which can be just as deadly and are limited only range. Let's people don't start reading the internet....

That's not to say there aren't some gun *safety* measures that could be taken that might help, but it will only get you part of the way there. It is necessary to address the underlying causes. And as long as prosecutors and lawmakers allow plea deals that prevent prosecution for breaking the laws already in place, you're just trying to drink a glass of water with a fork.