t0y

Well normally the civilian would be able to get shots off before the police even arrived, like at the church yesterday when a civilian was able to shoot and scare off the suspect which saved probably 10s more lives. This could also have been the case at let's say the Manhattan vehicle attack earlier this month, where if someone was walking down the West St. bike path and turned around seeing a car plowing towards them they could turn around and put shots into the car, or even when he got out at the very end although the NYPD did a good job shooting the suspect as soon as he got out of his vehicle, but nonetheless the civilian wouldn't be shooting at the suspect if there were 100 cops around them, but if they are alone and see the threat of more violence I am sure they would be able to save many lives. As for the break ins I hear about that, all the time, and a lot of those stories end with the burglars being shot or shot at, or even killed. Burglars are low lives, they aren't Harvard graduates, or professional thiefs, they don't plan out a robbery for weeks, they see a quick vulnerability and take it they dont care if there is anyone inside, they just want some money to buy some more crack.

Well according to my friend in the Guard, the Army, Navy, or Air Force cannot be deployed into the United States under any circumstances that includes fighting (to keep civilians under control) that job is up to the National Guard, which doesn't deploy with tanks, except overseas (as seen in past deployments of the Guard.) So really no, the Army cant be deployed into our streets at any scale against our civilians. Well I guess whoever said that, it is their prerogative if they want their gun to defend themselves against the government, but that in no way reflects the majority of gun owners in the country, the whole debate is centered around gun owners 1. wanting their rights as stated in the Constitution, and 2. wanting to defend themselves in case of a terror attack such as this one, or if someone is breaking into their house, purely for self defense. And I actually don't understand what you mean about protecting ourselves with legal action when our government is overreaching, I am not saying that to argue with you I just don't understand what that is about lol.

When did owning firearms become about overthrowing our government? The number of Americans that own firearms legally hovers around 30% with a majority of them just wanting that gun to protect themselves, and you will find them to be the most loyal to our government because of its backing on legally owning guns and not amending the constitution to restrict the 2nd amendment. I dont see where overthrowing the government came into the picture. Also America is not a "democratic nation" and I am not sure who says that, nor do I see how that has to do with the 2nd amendment, and calling our country the "Land of the Free" applies in this situation and supports our argument we are free and that is backed by every amendment in the Constitution.

If you are so anti 2nd amendment, then what do you suggest? Completely amending the constitution and removing our right to bear arms would 1. outrage most of the country including myself, even though I am a kid from new york city which is generally a liberal, strict gun law state I am pro 2nd amendment, and I think it is our right to have guns if we want, and 2. It could lead to other amendments of the constitution taking away even more of our rights and freedoms that millions of law abiding citizens of the U.S. like to have. If we changed the second amendment of the constitution, one of the first ever amendments, making the first ratification in 26 years you think it would stop there? Trump would find it smart to ratify the rest of the constitution and change a constitution that the anti gun people like, and then the argument will be reversed and they would be against a ratification. You dont understand how the world works, if 100% of the country was against the gun laws we have then they would have been changed years ago, but obviously there is a large group of people, tens of millions of people are pro gun and ratifying the amendment would just be in favor of the anti gun movement, you think it is that simple. Or do you suggest, editing the already made amendment. Although more logical what exactly would it say without removing the right itself?

So I am kind of late, started writing this before I left for school but now I am home so if someone already said this... rip. The constitution is extremely difficult to be ratified, as a majority of every branch of the system has to agree on something (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.) We have 27 I believe amendments and the constitution has been around for almost 250 years, which shows how little it is ratified, and that is good. The whole point of our government is to limit the power of individual people and create a fair and equal government. Of course a lot of people think it is an obviously good move to edit the amendment, but that would never happen unless you gave the president the power to edit the constitution in which case it would go against everything our founding fathers believed, and would just not work out. We want this to happen for the amendments we don't like but once someone gets in power that goes against our values and wants to change an amendment we believe in then we are against the whole idea of it. The writers of the constitution knew that it would last a while, and purposely made it difficult to change because they want a stable government, imagine every time there was an issue in our country the answer was to amend the constitution then nothing would stay the same per decade, and every time it would change it would make 50% of the people mad and 50% happy. You cant make everyone happy, and although I think the gun laws should be less lax the solution is not changing the constitution.

Cars are far less useful in mass killings than guns. Two car "attacks" have happened in Manhattan this year. The one other than the Manhattan attack this month, was the one in Times Square. Although it was not intentional, he drove his car into a crowd in the middle of one of the busiest parts of the city but only killed a single person. The attack earlier this month, killed just 8 people after driving the length of 7 city blocks through a school, and a bike path. Cities have been implementing thick concrete blocks at large tourist destinations making it near impossible for a vehicle to drive into it. Also the fact that cars are not as strong as people think, driving your car into 15 150 pound bodies at once is going to fuck it up whereas using a gun you can just spray and pray, the worst case scenario is your gun can jam, or you run out of ammo if you are ill prepared. Also the fact that driving your car into a crowd of 150 people will 1. be slow as always, you cant run down 150 people in 30 seconds, and 2. once someone sees the roof of a car plowing through people and someone screaming they are going to get the message whereas if you are in a crowd of people and hear gunshots you can look around but you wont be able to see a 6 foot tall person in the middle of a huge crowd shooting. Also, guns are not the problem. There are well over 300,000,000 guns legally owned in the United States today, but only 13,000 people have died due to a gun injury this year, many being at the hands of a terrorist or gang violence, or just someone not in their right state of mind. Revoking people's rights to bear arms would be extremely illogical and unconstitutional whereas checking the person who is buying them, more thoroughly than now, and restricting the unnecessary parts like a bull stock or 100 round clips could limit gun violence, and terrorist attacks I believe. I know we all play GTA so we think running over 200 people with our little sedan in 30 seconds is possible, but in reality in 30 seconds you could probably run over 10 people if it is densely populated and probably destroy your car in the meantime. I don't know what my point is with this paragraph, but it just comes down to the people who own the guns that are being used to terrorize the country are not in the right state of mind, and guns are much more effective in mass killings than vehicles.

The FBI and NYPD, and Cuomo himself have all said it is now officially a terror incident. The previous reports it was confirmed as non terrorism were false.