What is more dangerous?

[The Emerald Legion]

So, recently a thought occurred to me. What is more dangerous? The Head of State and Commander in Chief of the US military, The, in all likelihood, most powerful military on the face of the planet?

Or a machine gun? A weapon that aforementioned military has hundreds of, and more destructive weapons besides.

In case my stance was unclear, the President is clearly, obviously the more dangerous of the two.

And yet, despite both being rights. The right to vote is excercised free of any manner of regulation, or at least in most cases, and the Democrats, even while decrying our current president as a literal threat to global peace, seems to think even more so that voting should be utterly unregulated.

Why then, the change in argument when it comes to guns? Any minor incident leads to a slew of suggestions to limit our right to own weapons of war, despite that being a constitutional right enshrined just as strongly as the right to vote. We haven't come close to some idiot with a machine gun toppling a south American government, or propping up a dictator in the middle east... But politicians doing stupid things have done both.

And yet despite the dramatically lesser consequences, somehow those lesser consequences are more deserving of regulation? Would someone mind explaining this to me?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Just a thought and I could be wrong but it’s probably that when it comes to what a POTUS can or can’t do, there a lot of iron clad safeguards than when it comes to guns. Which you can have access to through legal or illegal means. There’re also reactions of fear that are very visceral when a shooting happens. Because it can happen anywhere and affect loved ones or yourself.

[Diopolis]

Because a bunch of urban liberals who know nothing about guns want to show dem rednecks.

[The Emerald Legion]

Just a thought and I could be wrong but it’s probably that when it comes to what a POTUS can or can’t do, there a lot of iron clad safeguards than when it comes to guns. Which you can have access to through legal or illegal means. There’re also reactions of fear that are very visceral when a shooting happens. Because it can happen anywhere and affect loved ones or yourself.

A fair point, but there are also fairly ironclad laws about what you can and cannot do with guns. And as evidenced by current events, it's fairly difficult to hold a president responsible for any wrongdoing. Whereas holding Joe Shooter to count for his wrongdoing is fairly simple.

And also evidenced by reactions in 2016, people can and do have fairly visceral reactions to certain presidents.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Just a thought and I could be wrong but it’s probably that when it comes to what a POTUS can or can’t do, there a lot of iron clad safeguards than when it comes to guns. Which you can have access to through legal or illegal means. There’re also reactions of fear that are very visceral when a shooting happens. Because it can happen anywhere and affect loved ones or yourself.

A fair point, but there are also fairly ironclad laws about what you can and cannot do with guns. And as evidenced by current events, it's fairly difficult to hold a president responsible for any wrongdoing. Whereas holding Joe Shooter to count for his wrongdoing is fairly simple.

And also evidenced by reactions in 2016, people can and do have fairly visceral reactions to certain presidents.

To clarify my stance. I don’t like guns. Never have. I strive to keep firearms out of my home (although we do keep a pellet gun at home because we have a huge problem with skunks trying to take up residence under our porch). I’m not from the US. I grew up in a place where guns were seen on either law enforcement or people up to no good. I don’t see a point about regular citizens carrying weapons. That being said, it’s your constitutional right and I realize that. I’m not here to change it.

[The Navy and Olive Domain]

A gun is not dangerous but if it is misused, it can be.

[The Emerald Legion]

A fair point, but there are also fairly ironclad laws about what you can and cannot do with guns. And as evidenced by current events, it's fairly difficult to hold a president responsible for any wrongdoing. Whereas holding Joe Shooter to count for his wrongdoing is fairly simple.

And also evidenced by reactions in 2016, people can and do have fairly visceral reactions to certain presidents.

To clarify my stance. I don’t like guns. Never have. I strive to keep firearms out of my home (although we do keep a pellet gun at home because we have a huge problem with skunks trying to take up residence under our porch). I’m not from the US. I grew up in a place where guns were seen on either law enforcement or people up to no good. I don’t see a point about regular citizens carrying weapons. That being said, it’s your constitutional right and I realize that. I’m not here to change it.

And that's fine. It's a right to keep and bear arms. Not a requirement.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

To clarify my stance. I don’t like guns. Never have. I strive to keep firearms out of my home (although we do keep a pellet gun at home because we have a huge problem with skunks trying to take up residence under our porch). I’m not from the US. I grew up in a place where guns were seen on either law enforcement or people up to no good. I don’t see a point about regular citizens carrying weapons. That being said, it’s your constitutional right and I realize that. I’m not here to change it.

And that's fine. It's a right to keep and bear arms. Not a requirement.

I think the fear that a loved one could be hurt during a shooting is what prompts the reaction to ban or over regulate gun ownership. And when we react, we don’t always reason through on how to actually proceed on an issue. Congress has that issue, be it on the Democratic side or the Republican side. Overreaction. Not good.

[Diopolis]

And that's fine. It's a right to keep and bear arms. Not a requirement.

I think the fear that a loved one could be hurt during a shooting is what prompts the reaction to ban or over regulate gun ownership. And when we react, we don’t always reason through on how to actually proceed on an issue. Congress has that issue, be it on the Democratic side or the Republican side. Overreaction. Not good.

Part of the problem is, of course, that most of the gun controllers literally don't know what a gun is, let alone anything else relevant to regulating them.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think the fear that a loved one could be hurt during a shooting is what prompts the reaction to ban or over regulate gun ownership. And when we react, we don’t always reason through on how to actually proceed on an issue. Congress has that issue, be it on the Democratic side or the Republican side. Overreaction. Not good.

Part of the problem is, of course, that most of the gun controllers literally don't know what a gun is, let alone anything else relevant to regulating them.

I guess what I want to say is that although the president is more dangerous than a firearm, the fear of harm due to gun violence is more immediate and palpable to some people than Donald J. Trump.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The president is more dangerous than a machine gun, true, but there's only one president and well over a hundred million people who vote.
A better question might be this: Which is more dangerous, the President, or 137.5 million machine guns?

[Ifreann]

Voting and a gun are very obviously completely different, and there no good reason for them to be treated similarly in almost any respect, and the OP's lies are bad and they should feel bad.

[Diopolis]

Voting and a gun are very obviously completely different, and there no good reason for them to be treated similarly in almost any respect, and the OP's lies are bad and they should feel bad.

Much like owning a gun and driving a car.

[The Emerald Legion]

Voting and a gun are very obviously completely different, and there no good reason for them to be treated similarly in almost any respect, and the OP's lies are bad and they should feel bad.

Voting and owning a gun are both rights both have consequences that are potentially negative, and at what point did I lie?

[Thermodolia]

This is a stupid hypothetical as automatic weapons aren’t legal in the US, without a shit ton of money and paperwork, and haven’t been for 40 years

[The Emerald Legion]

This is a stupid hypothetical as automatic weapons aren’t legal in the US, without a shit ton of money and paperwork, and haven’t been for 40 years

That's my point... Automatic weapons should be legal and unrestricted. It's just as much of a right, as your right to vote. Yet while one is verboten to so much as sneeze in the direction of, the other is increasingly attacked in more and more blatant ways.

[Diopolis]

This is a stupid hypothetical as automatic weapons aren’t legal in the US, without a shit ton of money and paperwork, and haven’t been for 40 years

You can still buy a pre-1986 machinegun, if you can afford it.

[Thermodolia]

This is a stupid hypothetical as automatic weapons aren’t legal in the US, without a shit ton of money and paperwork, and haven’t been for 40 years

You can still buy a pre-1986 machinegun, if you can afford it.

Hence

without a shit ton of money and paperwork

Helps to read people’s quotes

[Thermodolia]

This is a stupid hypothetical as automatic weapons aren’t legal in the US, without a shit ton of money and paperwork, and haven’t been for 40 years

That's my point... Automatic weapons should be legal and unrestricted. It's just as much of a right, as your right to vote. Yet while one is verboten to so much as sneeze in the direction of, the other is increasingly attacked in more and more blatant ways.

Should they be legal I’d say yes. Unrestricted? Hardly.

[Ifreann]

Voting and a gun are very obviously completely different, and there no good reason for them to be treated similarly in almost any respect, and the OP's lies are bad and they should feel bad.

Voting and owning a gun are both rights both have consequences that are potentially negative,

And like I said, there's no good reason for them to be treated similarly in almost any respect.

and at what point did I lie?

The right to vote is excercised free of any manner of regulation,

Lie. Every jurisdiction in the US has restrictions on who can vote and regulations on how voting is done.

or at least in most cases,

Lie. Not even in one case is this true.

and the Democrats [...] seems to think even more so that voting should be utterly unregulated.

Lie. Opposing attempts by Republicans to suppress voters that will not support them is not equivalent to wanting the supposedly already totally unregulated right to vote to somehow be even more unregulated.

[Diopolis]

You can still buy a pre-1986 machinegun, if you can afford it.

Hence

without a shit ton of money and paperwork

Helps to read people’s quotes

The paperwork for it is supposedly fairly manageable. The money, on the other hand...
Although let's be real here, most of these weapons wouldn't be affordable even if they were legal and unrestricted.

[The Emerald Legion]

That's my point... Automatic weapons should be legal and unrestricted. It's just as much of a right, as your right to vote. Yet while one is verboten to so much as sneeze in the direction of, the other is increasingly attacked in more and more blatant ways.

Should they be legal I’d say yes. Unrestricted? Hardly.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, which states clearly that restrictions aren't kosher.

[Grinning Dragon]

Since a machine gun is an inanimate object and incapable of acting on its own accord and seeing as how a machine gun it just a tool, it would be the person that would be more dangerous.

[Thermodolia]

Should they be legal I’d say yes. Unrestricted? Hardly.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment, which states clearly that restrictions aren't kosher.

No the 2nd amendment doesn’t say that. Restrictions within reason are fine. 21+ with an background check including DV and state funded firearm training and you should be able to own any gun you want below military grade

[Rojava Free State]

Because the people who wanna ban guns also like big, powerful, authoritarian government.