17

I'm still going to maintain my (recently remade) Tumblr blog, before anyone asks that. Same username. I'm simply curious what questions you all might have for me, since I see people from Reddit and Voat doing this thing.

Tumblr might be pretty different from any of these sights, but it's worth a shot.

I'm still going to maintain my (recently remade) Tumblr blog, before anyone asks that. Same username. I'm simply curious what questions you all might have for me, since I see people from Reddit and Voat doing this thing. Tumblr might be pretty different from any of these sights, but it's worth a shot.

59 comments

[–] jidlaph 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

I can understand single shot at a time (or at all) simple pistols and rifles, but even revolvers need to get the boot in my book. much less semi-automatic or automatic weapons.

...

Well, I vehemently disagree with that, but you choose cabbage so I guess we can still be friends.

That's what the US founders assumed as single shot weapons. Hell, they assumed flintlocks!

A man named Joseph Belton claimed he had invented a flintlock that could fire 8 rounds in 3-8 seconds, and could get it up to 16 or 20 rounds in 5-16 seconds.

He attempted sell them to the Continental Congress, but after letting him modify a few rifles they ultimately decided it was too expensive.

This was in 1777, almost 10 years before the 2nd Amendment was written.

Edit: there was also the Cookson Repeater, a 9-shot flintlock rifle made in Boston in the 1750s, and Kalthoff repeaters were around Europe in the 1600s.

Oh. Now see I hadn't heard of that.

... Now that I listen to all y'alls arguments and do the research to back it up, I'm actually not sure what my stance on guns is?

It's a difficult subject for me because of my personal history anyway.

[–] GumpyBastard 0 points (+0|-0)

I think the more important question is what is your stance on constitutional rights. Are they any limits you think should apply to freedom of speech, the press, religion, assembly, etc since you stated earlier you were fine on limiting the 2nd amendment?

I think where the current 'gun argument' fails is that people try to argue for what private citizens 'need'. Need is not the issue, possessing firearms is a fundamental right. When someone creates art, do we ask if it needed to be created? When someone prints an editorial critical of our government do we ask if it needed to be printed? You mention your personal history, which I will go out on a limb and say is a reason you don't like guns. When you see a painting you don't like, do you think the government should be able to say no one can own that kind of painting? When you see a book you disagree with, do you think everyone should be banned from using it?