[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 33 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



"The bill would establish the "McDaniel Militia Act," which would require those aged 18-34 not legally prohibited to possess a firearm to own a semi-automatic rifle that is modeled on the AR-15 design by ArmaLite, Inc."

https://krcgtv.com/news/local/missouri-bill-would-require-adults-aged-18-34-to-own-ar-15
>>
They aren't even trying to be subtle with their shilling anymore
>>
it says adults not men, so it's got more going for it than the selective service system
>>
>not just have any gun
>specifically have to own an AR-15
I wonder how much the manufacturers are paying this guy
>>
that is sick (in a bad way)
nobody needs those fucking things
>>
McDaniel is saying it's all a clever ruse:

https://splinternews.com/lawmaker-my-gun-bills-are-a-total-scam-1833326426
>>
>>369124
This. If I wrote it any semi auto rifle chambered in .223 Remington or .308 Winchester would do. Maybe I'd add 7.62x39 for muh SKS.
>>
This is awesome. And I live in MO. So if another civil war starts I guess I’m in a pretty good state.
>>
In many parts od the worls it is illegal to not carry when leaving your home.
>>
BASED
>>
That would be cool if they were given away for free
>>
>>369225
it's not socialism if it's guns
>>
Democrats/socialists are truly retarded
>>
>>369181
>In many parts od the worls it is illegal to not carry when leaving your home.

What parts would those be?
>>
>>369103

the jew fuck who invented that purge movie made the idea way to popular. americunt senators will even sigh for that fucking dead brain shit just to keep own pockets full.
>>
>forced to buy health insurance
literally communism
>forced to buy AR-15
totally sensible
>>
>>369518
>forced to buy a service
>forced to buy the means to protect all your other rights
There is absolutely no difference at all, nothing to see here folks.
>>
>>369518
Supposedly the bill was designed to sound batshit insane to get publicity and ease into a comparatively more reasonable tax credit.
>>
>>369520
Presumably not being sick or dying from inability to afford medical treatment also goes some ways toward protecting freedom.
>>
>>369520
t. marx-leninist
>>
>>369538
>freedom means someone else taking care of you
I think
>>369539
was meant for you.
>>
>>369540
>freedom means someone else taking care of you
firearms are presumably also designed, produced, and distributed by someone other than the owner.
unless the law requires everyone make an AR-15 from scratch
>>
>>369103
This is a good idea if they dont have to pay for it.
otherwise its just thinly veiled corporatism like obamacare
>>
>>369559
Still a false equivalence. Health insurance doesn' help protect your other rights.
>>
>>369563
I'm no NASA engineer, but I feel like being alive is kind of a requirement for protecting rights.
>>
>>369565
What if I told you you can survive just fine without health insurance?
>>
>>369572
What if I told you not being able to access healthcare means you will die earlier than you would if you could?
>>
>>369574
I would tell you that a hypothetical scenario wouldn't apply to everyone, probably not even most people, whereas gun ownership helps protect civil liberties at a societal level.
>>
>>369575
Without using these dreaded hypotheticals, how do guns do that?
>>
>>369577
By discouraging the government from disregarding or abusing the rule of law.
>>
>>369578
Yes, but how?
>>
>>369580
When the people have the power to contest the government's monopoly of force, it behooves the government to behave in a way that's respectful of civil liberties.
>>
>>369583
Not dying gives more numbers to supply that force you're not giving any reasons why guns are special in this argument.
>>
>>369586
It's called force multiplication. One armed guy on your side is better than a hundred unarmed guys.
>>
>>369587
>>369586
Why not both? These ideas are not in opposition to one another
>>
>>369591
That's not the point, see
>>369520
>>
>>369587
>One armed guy on your side is better than a hundred unarmed guys.
You know that's not true. All it takes is one dead as a body shield and one alive to charge the shooter.
But these are hypotheticals, which we can't use.
>>
>>369598
>All it takes is one dead as a body shield
Such is life in modern America, where one can survive by the fat of the land
>>
>>369598
>All it takes is one dead as a body shield and one alive to charge the shooter.
So why doesn't every mass shooting have just one casualty?
>But these are hypotheticals, which we can't use.
Way to miss the point. I said your example was hypothetical to show how it's different from gun ownership.
>>
>>369604
So people aren't dying earlier in places where treatment is available? That's not a thing that happens and is just hypothetical?
>So why doesn't every mass shooting have just one casualty?
Multitude if reasons, but panic and shame would be some my guesses why kids don't use human bodies for shields. They don't teach that in gym I guess.
>>
>>369587
>It's called force multiplication. One armed guy on your side is better than a hundred unarmed guys.
agreed.
>>369598
>You know that's not true.. these are hypotheticals, which we can't use.
i will give you a concrete example:
one armed Brenton Harrison Tarrant was better than 50 unarmed muslims.. maybe its not the 100:1 ratio, but its still pretty good force multiplier.
>>
>>369607
>So people aren't dying earlier in places where treatment is available? That's not a thing that happens and is just hypothetical?
It's not something that happens every single moment.
>They don't teach that in gym I guess.
Maybe because it doesn't work that way.
>>
>>369608
>maybe its not the 100:1 ratio, but its still pretty good force multiplier.
What is the exact ratio there? Then the next step is what is the force replenishment due to medicine?
>>369610
>It's not something that happens every single moment.
Most things don't happen every single moment, that's a shitty excuse. Try again.
>>
>>369614
>What is the exact ratio there
too soon to tell yet, but i had read that so far 50 are confirmed as dead
>>
>>369614
>Most things don't happen every single moment, that's a shitty excuse.
your what they call 'planetary minded'
this is a large universe pretty much every thing is happening somewhere in any given moment
>>
>>369614
>Most things don't happen every single moment, that's a shitty excuse.
I can name something that does: The 2nd Amendment protecting our other rights.
>>
>>369474
longyearbyen
>>
>>369616
You can use other shootings and get an average. History is a thing.
>>369617
Thankfully we're not talking about an entire universe.
>>369621
Criminals have second amendment rights? Weird, guess they better go tell the jails. Of course this isn't actually your argument, and I fully expect some silly backtracking excuse.
>>
>>369658
>Criminals have second amendment rights
No, but it looks like they will be getting voting rights soon...
>>
>>369474
The third world ones
>>
You all do realize that this bill is sort of a joke meant to mock bans? And also to shift the Overton window back against it? Shock via extrema.

Honestly, I feel like they are soon going to challenge the NFA.
>>
>>369658
>Criminals have second amendment rights? Weird, guess they better go tell the jails.
>Of course this isn't actually your argument
Of course it's not, that's a complete non sequitur. We're not talking about whether or not criminals have rights.
>>
I'm guessing ArmaLite specifically lobbied to get this?
>>
>>369708
If the argument is reliant at happening at all times, and I give when it doesn't happen, how is that not directly related?
Rhetorical obviously, as of course it's related, you just backpedal.
>>
>>369765
Criminals are people who don't respect others' rights. Part of the reason why we have governments in the first place is to make sure they get dealt with justly. It's only when the government starts abusing its power, by punishing the innocent and rewarding criminals for instance, that it becomes necessary to contest the monopoly of force- and as long as enough people practice their right to keep and bear arms, it should never become necessary in the first place. I'm not making any of this up ad hoc, it's all in the preamble to the Constitution.
>>
>>369765
Not that guy, but just so we are being absolutely clear. You are trying to create a "so there" argument by saying that his statement referenced absolute universal coverage of citizens by the second amendment yet criminals, convicted or awaiting a hearing, have their rights suspended and thus are not covered? Doesn't that seems just a bit nit picky?
>>
>>369774
I'm not arguing you're making it up. I'm also not too interested in the idea a right can be taken away, that's called a privilege.
I'm arguing the right is not every single moment, which it seems you're agreeing with me now.
>>369775
>Doesn't that seems just a bit nit picky?
It is. That's kind of the point of specifics over hypotheticals.
>>
>>369776
>I'm arguing the right is not every single moment, which it seems you're agreeing with me now
It exists every single moment, except for criminals. I don't see what's so difficult about this.
>>
>>369777
>It exists
>Except when it doesn't
I'm not disagreeing with this. Are you even reading my posts?
>>
>>369776
It can be inferred based on the thread of discussion that they were solely referring to the noncriminal side of society. Certainly this was never explicitly established, but unless they were looking to start an argument I don't suspect the average person would assume that they were arguing universals. You might as well have said that the rights don't extend to non US citizens and thus can't happen "every single moment." But hey, if you want to fritter away your time quibbling with people over the use of imprecise language on a Mongolian Throat Singing Forum, that's your choice.
>>
>>369779
Of course I'm reading your posts. Do you know what the term "rule of law" means?
>>
>>369780
>Certainly this was never explicitly established, but unless they were looking to start an argument I don't suspect the average person would assume that they were arguing universals
>>369621
>I can name something that does

This whole "argument" is just cope for "muh guns" being just as invalid as "much medicine". If you want to go back to that point in the argument, then I'll respond in kind.
>>369783
>Do you know what the term "rule of law" means?
I'm not disagreeing with it. Try reading.
>>
>>369785
>I'm not disagreeing with it. Try reading.
OK, I'll read something for you:
>The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."
This is the concept that the 2nd Amendment helps preserve at all times. When criminals are justly punished by having their rights suspended in accordance with the established law, this is an example of the rule of law, not an exception to it. I don't think I can make it any clearer.
>>
>>369786
Your definition doesn't follow into your argument. The second amendment is not a behavior.
>>
>>369789
By "the 2nd Amendment" I mean citizens owning guns. Come on, you're just splitting hairs.
>>
>>369791
The second amendment does not require gun ownership.
>>
Yang's $1000/month UBI would put an AR in every home, with ammo, maintenance and range time, not to mention the NRA basic gun safety course. 0001$= 楊
>>
>>369793
There's a pretty clear logical nexus between the two. You're really just splitting hairs.
>>
>>369797
It's not. You're clumping a whole pelt together and claiming it a "hair".
You aren't supporting your argument. Your Nexus is nothing but ether.
>>
>>369798
>Your Nexus is nothing but ether.

>The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own guns
>Citizens are allowed to own guns because of the 2nd Amendment
What part of that doesn't add up?
>>
>>369808
Criminals are still citizens.
>>
>>369826
tbqh we should still be sending them off to australia
>>
>>369826
...whose rights have been suspended because they didn't respect the rights of other citizens.
FTFY
>>
>>369849
I never disagreed with that.
>>
>>369850
So what the Sam Hill are we arguing about?
>>
>>369852
I'm arguing that something being true sometimes and not true other times makes that something not true all the time.
>>
>>369575
Sometimes you're the one it applies to.
>>
>>369875
I see. Too bad that's not relevant to my premise at all. What you seem to be missing is that just because civilian gun ownership doesn't protect the civil liberties of criminals doesn't mean it stops protecting those of law-abiding citizens. Hopefully that will clear things up for you.
>>
>>369883
I didn't miss it. That was never the issue here.
>>
>>369886
It was kinda part of my point.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.