What is more dangerous?

[Diopolis]

Dude are you seriously suggesting that it should be legal for anyone to buy a gun at any age? Do you realize the consequences of that?

Little to none? Children typically don't have the money for guns, and if the parents are willing to pay, all that's changed is that the minor is actually buying the gun, rather than the parent buying the gun and then handing it to Junior.

Realistically, it would probably be rather uncommon for anyone to have the ability to buy a gun before about sixteen, for the same reason children don't generally buy other things that cost $200-$500.

[The Emerald Legion]

A machine gun can't authorize nuclear strikes, killing millions (if not billions) of people, with the press of a button.

Unless you're CNN, then they totally do

Trump can't do that either.

The fuck you talking about? Of course he could. He won't, but won't and can't are two different things.

[Thermodolia]

Little to none? Children typically don't have the money for guns, and if the parents are willing to pay, all that's changed is that the minor is actually buying the gun, rather than the parent buying the gun and then handing it to Junior.

Realistically, it would probably be rather uncommon for anyone to have the ability to buy a gun before about sixteen, for the same reason children don't generally buy other things that cost $200-$500.

The problem I have is that it opens the door to other issues like age of consent, child labor laws, and other things. If a child is old enough to buy a gun then why aren’t they old enough to have sex or work for a living, just to play the devils advocate .

[Fartsniffage]

"What is more dangerous? A button that destroys the world or the person who chooses to press that button?"

It's obviously the person who chooses to press the button. But that doesn't mean you should build the button is the first place.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Trump can't do that either.

The fuck you talking about? Of course he could. He won't, but won't and can't are two different things.

Trump can't simply smash a big red button and start nuclear war.

[The Emerald Legion]

Realistically, it would probably be rather uncommon for anyone to have the ability to buy a gun before about sixteen, for the same reason children don't generally buy other things that cost $200-$500.

The problem I have is that it opens the door to other issues like age of consent, child labor laws, and other things. If a child is old enough to buy a gun then why aren’t they old enough to have sex or work for a living, just to play the devils advocate .

In what world does 'Purchasing a Firearm' relate to 'Having Sex' or 'Working for a living'?

[The Union of the West]

Is getting rid of voting and guns an option?

[The Emerald Legion]

The fuck you talking about? Of course he could. He won't, but won't and can't are two different things.

Trump can't simply smash a big red button and start nuclear war.

But he can in fact order a nuclear strike.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

The right to vote and the right to bear arms are different from an unpopular president who couldn't get a majority or even a pluralty and killing people with a machine gun. Both of abuses of the above rights, with Trump being a disregard while murder is a violation of the law.

[Morover]

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

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the aquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

A well regulated

Seems like you missed something there. Furthermore, nothing should necessarily keep a reasonable citizen from owning a gun - because they'd pass any security check. I don't really see anything unconstitutional about putting in some pretty basic regulations in place.

For the record, I'm for some pretty basic regulations to be put in place - such as a brief test (much like the test to receive the driver's license) to receive a gun. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Voting rights are not something that should be withheld from only a specific amount of the populace, for any reason. So, just because the president is more dangerous than a gun, it is foolish to presume that's a reason against firearm regulation nor a reason to prohibit voting rights. But, honestly, that may just be me.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Trump can't simply smash a big red button and start nuclear war.

But he can in fact order a nuclear strike.

Unless everyone else is on board, that means next to shit. If he purges the military, then it's more likely. But for now, no.

[Grinning Dragon]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the aquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

A well regulated

Seems like you missed something there. Furthermore, nothing should necessarily keep a reasonable citizen from owning a gun - because they'd pass any security check. I don't really see anything unconstitutional about putting in some pretty basic regulations in place.

For the record, I'm for some pretty basic regulations to be put in place - such as a brief test (much like the test to receive the driver's license) to receive a gun. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Voting rights are not something that should be withheld from only a specific amount of the populace, for any reason. So, just because the president is more dangerous than a gun, it is foolish to presume that's a reason against firearm regulation nor a reason to prohibit voting rights. But, honestly, that may just be me.

The "Well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment does not infer legislative regulation. Its meaning in the prefatory clause is in regards to "in working order"
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This part is the actual enumerated negative right.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This part is nothing more than a prefatory clause, it does not define the right itself, but to merely give a positive reason on why the people's right to keep and bear arms is important.

[The Emerald Legion]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the aquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

A well regulated

Seems like you missed something there. Furthermore, nothing should necessarily keep a reasonable citizen from owning a gun - because they'd pass any security check. I don't really see anything unconstitutional about putting in some pretty basic regulations in place.

For the record, I'm for some pretty basic regulations to be put in place - such as a brief test (much like the test to receive the driver's license) to receive a gun. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Voting rights are not something that should be withheld from only a specific amount of the populace, for any reason. So, just because the president is more dangerous than a gun, it is foolish to presume that's a reason against firearm regulation nor a reason to prohibit voting rights. But, honestly, that may just be me.

A Well regulated Militia. The Militia (AKA the people) is to be regulated. For example, even if access to Arms was totally unregulated, if I were to take my recreational bazooka and broadside some guy who cut me off on the highway.... I would still be in trouble because I misused my weaponry.

The whole idea of gun control is to preemptively strip people of their constitutional rights on the off chance that they might break the law in the future.

[Des-Bal]

There are lots of regulations on voting and the idea of a private right of ownership is mostly the product of the frontier not the constitutional convention.

[Fartsniffage]

There are lots of regulations on voting and the idea of a private right of ownership is mostly the product of the frontier not the constitutional convention.

What regulations of voting are there other than be a citizen and be over 18?

[Kowani]

There are lots of regulations on voting and the idea of a private right of ownership is mostly the product of the frontier not the constitutional convention.

What regulations of voting are there other than be a citizen and be over 18?

That depends on your state.

[Des-Bal]

What regulations of voting are there other than be a citizen and be over 18?

Depends on where you live.

[Fartsniffage]

What regulations of voting are there other than be a citizen and be over 18?

That depends on your state.

Ah....

[The South Falls]

While the president is quite obviously more dangerous than the gun, often the safeguards on voting are enough. Automatic Voter Registration should be implemented, based on a full roll of citizens by the census. The tech to make people vote, an invalidation system that essentially crosses off names as the votes come in, and stops immigrants who are not citizens from voting as many rightists say they do. Voting is then held at a safeguard.

[Kowani]

While the president is quite obviously more dangerous than the gun, often the safeguards on voting are enough. Automatic Voter Registration should be implemented, based on a full roll of citizens by the census. The tech to make people vote, an invalidation system that essentially crosses off names as the votes come in, and stops immigrants who are not citizens from voting as many rightists say they do. Voting is then held at a safeguard.

Seriously, what is this obsession with illegal immigrants voting? It almost never happens, and when it does, never in large numbers.

[Diopolis]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A Militia is a military force recruited from the civilian populace. Typically in a time of need. Usually with whatever equipment they happen to bring with them.

So, the ability to recruit military units from amongst the civilian populace was considered of vital importance to the founders.

Because of that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe is to act in such a manner as to limit something.

It very very plainly says the government has no right to limit the aquisition of arms by citizens.

Nowhere does it say reasonable restrictions are fine. Nowhere at all.

A well regulated

Seems like you missed something there. Furthermore, nothing should necessarily keep a reasonable citizen from owning a gun - because they'd pass any security check. I don't really see anything unconstitutional about putting in some pretty basic regulations in place.

For the record, I'm for some pretty basic regulations to be put in place - such as a brief test (much like the test to receive the driver's license) to receive a gun. I don't think that's unreasonable.

This is based on a faulty analogy.
The reason driver's licenses are an effective public safety measure is because the vast majority of automobile deaths result from accidents or negligence, which training can seriously cut down on. Guns are the opposite situation- the vast majority of gun deaths are... actually suicide, and there's no reason to think a basic safety course would reduce that. Most of the rest are murder. Accidents and negligence are, in comparison, trivial. In addition, most accidental or negligent firearms deaths are not inflicted by the actual owner of the firearm- aka, those who would have to pass a licensing exam. Accidental deaths are also on the decline anyways.
There's no reason to think requiring training before acquiring a gun would do anything about gun violence or suicide, which together account for 32,318 out of 33,636 gun deaths(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... t_injuries).
In terms of preventing total deaths, the most effective gun control measures would be safe storage, waiting periods, and universal background checks.

[Kavagrad]

OP makes some good points, I now support banning Presidents.

[The Huskar Social Union]

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.

Yeah that totally wont end badly at all, absolutely not.

[Rastrian]

Imagine a Mortal Kombat battle.

PRESIDENT TRUMP

versus

MAN WITH MACHINE GUN

How would that go down?

Now yes, of course, Donald Trump can make some pretty major decisions that affect the world. But no-one is arguing for the right for everyone to own a Donald Trump. Or any president for that matter. Just the ability to help decide who that person is in accordance with their interests.

So, which is more dangerous, the President or the Gun? The President, obviously. But once I have a gun, there's no limit to what I can do. Once I've voted, the person who's been voted in is beholden to laws. Legal justice can't always be effectively carried out on a man with a machine gun before they cause a lot of damage.

Perhaps the President does have access to a Big Red Button. But it should be the right of every person to ensure that someone who'd push that button isn't elected to the most powerful position on Earth.

[Kowani]

Really, it all depends on what context we’re measuring power in. Just ask John Wilkes Booth.