Ask her if Hamas was outside her house about to enter and rape and murder and torture, would she use a gun to defend herself or submit to certain painful torture?
Read the constitution? Its a right that shall not be infringed upon. Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine
Making it harder is anti constitutional.
Ask her how hard it is right now.
Show her the pic of the raped, murdered and paraded bodies of Jewish young women.
Tell her 60 years ago you could order one from a magazine or catalog and it would ship directly to your home.
Back then we had mental hospitals fully staffed and society was still very Christian Principled with respect for life.
It was a different country.
We need morality again.
It’s not an issue about what is accessible to people.
It’s an issue about what people do with what they have.
An icicle through the eye kills just like a bullet.
Should we ban icicles?
Liberals love strawman arguments regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Hopefully she wont have to learn the hard way.
I would start with “its hard to buy guns now”. Then start with all the rules and regs that currently exist.
It should be harder for people to hurt others.
it should be harder for ignorance to spread.
it should be harder for government to interfere.
it should be harder for hatred to grow.
owning a gun does not make a man evil. it protects the good from the bad, and the man’s family too.
it is better to have a gun and not need it. than to need a gun and not have it.
and no one needs to know... especially the government.
Hamas. October 7
Then have a discussion about rights.
How about simply enforce the laws that are already in place? And what does she mean harder?
Harder for who???Women who had been beaten by men???People who have their homes invaded???? People who run businesses and see all the looting around them???These are the very people the gov’t have made it harder to get guns to protect themselves......
Would it have made the recent tragedy less likely? Answer: No, the guy has owned many firearms for a long time. What about people who have suddenly come under immenent threat: for instance a woman with a protective order? She need self-defense NOW, “not harder to get”, like after she’s dead.
why? criminals don’t obey laws...thats why they are criminals. But law abiding citizens with guns stop criminals. Look at the open/conceal states like Idaho and Montana crime statistics per capital to make the comparison equal. GUN Ownership PREVENTS crime.
maybe it should be harder to buy kitchen knives, hammers, or bananas for god’s sake someone could slip on the peels
Maybe show her a map of where the violence & crime in the US is occurring vs where the more stringent gun laws are?
There is a powerful 2A argument to be made. The words there are clear. It might also be useful to compare “gun control” with “liquor control” (Prohibition in the 1920s).
Well-meaning folks in the 1920s saw the damage alcohol could do. So they passed a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. The end result was that law abiding people had no alcohol. Criminals could get all the alcohol they wanted.
This is historical evidence. It is not just some guess. And there is no reason to believe that stringent gun control would be any different.
You: “I once saw a movie in which only the police and military had guns.”
Her: “Really? What was it?”
You: “Schindler’s List”.