There will come a time, when law-abiding Americans will not be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines

In a shooting from a few days ago, a pump-action shotgun was used. They are neither semi-automatic nor (in most cases) have a detachable magazine. So they'll try to ban those next. There are other examples.

Just be a bad guy. You get to do what you want and the women love you for it.

Yeah... given that you're posting on a degenerate meme board like this, I'm guessing you haven't had much success with this.

You're giving the same vibe that the dating app profiles in "nice guys" listicals do.

Sorry. Too busy getting a rim J from your mom to come up with a well thought response.

So simple a liberal *might* be able to follow along.

read my comment below. This is not a valid argument.

(apologies for my delayed reply...)

It's a perfectly valid and common sense perspective; so yes, it's valid.

What makes no sense is trying to limit any/all firearms to two or three rounds. Why don't we just do away with semi and fully automatic weapons and force us all start using bolt action rifles and single action hand guns?

The answer to that and all the other restrictive laws liberals want to impose on a very large segment of the population is simple, although willfully ignored by the left. It's a two-fold answer: 1) those laws are unconstitutional based on the 2nd amendment, and 2) the bad guys, astoundingly, appear unwilling to be law abiding citizens.

So once again we have a situation where the left is supporting criminals in their activities, but want to impose restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Thank goodness for the 2nd amendment, so bad ideas don't get off the ground. Although, with the 2A as a roadblock, why not just repeal it? If the gun control crowd is so certain that the public is on their side, it should be easy, right?

Well... What if we give everybody a 2-year period to sell their firearms back to the government at a reasonable price, and then make possession of any firearm or magazine with an ammunition capacity higher than 2-3 rounds a felony? Law abiding citizens would trade in their firearms for cash compensation, and we'd have a reason to arrest "the bad guys".

imo all firearms should be limited to 2-3 rounds max capacity. There is no practical use for anything more outside of the military.

Sounds like someone who is unwilling to fight for what is important to their country or in their life. Any reasonable person on the way to a fight, would leave the two shooter on the table and pick up the semiautomatic with a detachable magazine.

yes but some of us are smart enough to avoid conflict and to seek peace

There are 144 million homes in the United States. Therefore, the actual chance that your home is robbed is approximately 1.3%. Not enough reason to justify buying a weapon?

144M people probably disagree.

In 2019, there were an estimated 821,182 aggravated assaults in the nation. I really don't have to total every possible situation where a good guy with a gun.

The right to defend one's self and interests is a Constitutionally protected human right.*

* with a weapon that at least evens the odds.

"God made men,
Samuel Colt made them equal"

In order to effectively defend yourself with any weapon, you need to be well trained in how to use them. What would you say if we required 200 hours of firearm training if you wished to own one?

I would say; that is a completely unrealistic number. More people by far, are killed by cars and there is no required training at all

Read: Driver's license

California, the state which every conservative is jealous of.

Bad grammar

California, the state of which every conservative is jealous.

Pretty much everything you've written

"Required" training to get a driver's license?

Yes. At least where I live, you need 50 hours of driving experience and there's a whole bunch of restrictions about what counts and doesn't count.

Where do live?

California, the state which every conservative is jealous of.

And, way less than the 200 hrs you want for a much easier task

Your grammar is atrocious....

Consider the following: Is a car's primary function to kill people / animals? No, that's not what it was designed for at least. Cars are designed to be as safe as possible in the event of a collision. Firearms, on the other hand, are designed exclusively for killing living things as efficiently and quickly as possible, and to be waved around by egotistical people as a way of showing that they're not afraid to kill. In short, the reason I think that there should be much heavier restrictions on firearms (or we just shouldn't have any, honestly), is that there is no other reason to own one.

A common argument from the right is that people need to own firearms for self-defense from other people bearing firearms. However, this argument is, in my view, not a valid point since we could solve this problem by instituting a program for people to sell their firearms to the government and earn some money back by doing so. After all law-abiding citizens have sold their firearms back to the government, we can make possession of a firearm a felony, punishable by a couple years in prison. The homicide rate in the US would fall dramatically and our children would finally be able to attend school without fear of being murdered.

They be out on parole by the weekend