it seems to me that the argument FOR restrictions comes down to 2 things...

#1 nobody is coming for your guns, we believe in the 2nd amendment (at least the constant erosion of it). we are just proposing reasonable restrictions, one step at a time, or as much as we can push for by exploiting whatever tragedy we feel like.

#2 we don't own any guns, so the reality is we don't give a shit if all of the weapons were taken away tomorrow. we only care about the rights that are important to us, rather than having a broader understanding that all rights are important and should be protected equally.


people say they are for your rights to self defense, but then again at the same time will tell you that X, Y, or Z weapons are not needed for self defense, despite not knowing anything about the weapons in question, or your own personal set of circumstances that might make one weapon a better choice for you personally.

there is a huge segment of the population unwilling to look at the big picture: violent crime has been on a steady and substancial decline for a long time now, and the country is safer as a whole than its ever been. i shouldn't lose my rights because of a few random crazy people no matter what we are talking about. for those of you who will counter with the usual "nobody is taking away your guns/rights", here's a newflash: calling for me to not be able to posses a certain class of weapons is most certainly taking away my rights. if we follow that twisted logic, as long as i'm able to own a musket, then my 2nd amendment rights aren't being infringed apon, right? what certain people are unable to grasp is that, much to their dismay, there is no way to legislate away craziness!