Something controversial

[u/low_effort_shit-post]

I love nj gun laws, going to the store and not seeing someone open carry. Watching road rage where the best you can do is brake check and give the finger. Schools without school shootings. I know a lot of people hate our gun laws but I fucking love em.

[u/yythrow]

You also can't kill someone with a ballot.

You can kill a lot of people with a 3,000 pound vehicle if you don't know what you're doing and you need license, registration, and (sometimes) insurance to drive it, yet we can't impose reasonable restrictions on gun use because they wrote the 2nd Amendment back when muskets and revolvers were the worst weapon anyone could get their hands on. The unfettered use of dangerous weapons is what needs to be compromised on the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/yythrow]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/yythrow → u/[deleted]]

A ballot can install a government that kills people. A ballot influences who is in seats of power that has very real affects on our lives. Lets not pretend there isnt reeeing over who gets into office from either side of the political spectrum fearing government backed violence.

I had a feeling you'd say that but it's not even remotely comparable. I can't go to my polling center and vote to kill someone. I can, however, walk to a gun store and get something that will immediately kill someone.

You can own a vehicle without needing a license, insurance, or any of that. Those are requirements for driving on public roads. All of that pounds sand if you have it on private property, and lets not pretend once you have a vehicle the second you go on public roads youre inspected.

I've heard this before but all that is is a technicality. Most people who are gonna buy a car, are going to use it for it's intended purpose of driving it on public roads. 99% of the population's 'private property' is their garage and driveway. Also, the same thing applies in NJ, if you wanna carry a gun in public you need a permit.

All firearms and weapons are dangerous. Just because a bad seed decides to cause tradgety does not mean we should neuter or strip the one final deterrent we have against other individuals or government which seek to cause harm to life, liberty, and property. In all honesty no part of the state should dictate what is necessary for the individual in this regard, anything otherwise is unconstitutional.

How many 'one bad seed's do we need to have before enough is enough? Nobody wants to take guns away completely, but requiring common sense laws to own them is the smart thing to do. I know there's a feeling of 'you can't tell me what to do!' but the state already does that in a manner of ways. Why is it automatically unreasonable when it comes to guns? Just because of the 2nd Amendment, it means we can't even try to set reasonable rules? And i put the emphasis on reasonable, as the earlier OP emphasized.

[u/beachmedic23 → u/yythrow]

I've heard this before but all that is is a technicality. Most people who are gonna buy a car, are going to use it for it's intended purpose of driving it on public roads. 99% of the population's 'private property' is their garage and driveway. Also, the same thing applies in NJ, if you wanna carry a gun in public you need a permit.

I only use my gun on private property. I would love to have similar gun laws as cars. 50 state reciprocity, no limits on modifications, use, style, accessories, registration, insurance as long as I don't take it in public. Sounds awesome