[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / 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] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 34 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


>Gun sales expected to set new records after Joe Biden's White House win
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/12/business/gun-sales-joe-biden/index.html
>Militias challenge gun laws in Virginia: "It's about shooting tyrants in the face"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-gun-laws-militia-armed-resistance/
>>
It's the same shit that happened under Obama. The gun companies

1 spread rumors there will be a gun grab.
2 ???
3 profit

Meanwhile Pelosi and the House could pass 10 bills restricting AR-15 sales and McConnell won't bring a single one to the floor.
>>
>>729429
Anyone with half a brain got their guns before COVID, and definitely before Biden. Only a fucking idiot would buy now that the prices are going up.
>>
>>729433
>1 spread rumors there will be a gun grab.
>Biden literally saying he wants to take assault rifles.
>Has Kamala as VP who wants to take assault rifles.
>Has said to Beto that he wants him to help take guns.
Gee why on earth would anyone believe he would grab guns?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pplfodl2Dsg
>>
>>729433
>rumor
Biden posts how he is anti gun like everyday and how he wants to have the ATF call ARs machine guns so he can regulate them under the NFA like they do with open bolt guns for being "too easily convertible"
Plus dems already said if they pick up both georgia seats they are ending the filibuster, packing the court, and doing single party rule
>>
>>729437
Because nobody ever gun grabs. There hasn't been an actual gun grab in decades. It's just a marketing ploy that certain people are guaranteed to fall for every single time, kind of like Black Friday and Mother's Day.
>>
>>729441
>Because nobody ever gun grabs.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-officers-serving-red-flag-gun-removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/
>>
>>729438
They're just idle threats and campaign promises. If you honestly think even 1 thing you listed will come to pass then you're a gullible moron.
>>
>>729444
I'll take what is Virginia for $500, Alex... Oh wait, you're dead.
>>
>>729441
>>729444
What is the 1993 awb the numerous state AWBs and red flag laws? Fuck my state governor closed down gun stores during covid because everytown emailed him to and then said at a press conference he did it not for health reasons, but because he didn't want people buying guns.
>>
>>729442
Nice try but you're leaving out the context of that law:
>Under the law: spouses; cohabitants; relatives by blood, marriage or adoption; a person with children in common; current dating or intimate partner; current or former legal guardian; a law enforcement officer or a medical professional who examined the person, can seek an extreme risk protective order, according to the Maryland Judiciary.
https://www.capitalgazette.com/news/ac-cn-red-flag-20191001-zjzsbra735eatkkm2qmobz5z4a-story.html

Not a real gun grab.
>>
>>729445
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/misinformation-outlasts-virginia-gun-bill/

>>729446
If you're subject to a red flag law you should never have been able to legally buy a gun in the first place.
>>
>>729447
>Not a real gun grab.
>They literally killed a guy who wouldn't give up his gun.
>A guy who did not commit any crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_3wQHcm_Y
>>
>>729448
>If you're subject to a red flag law you should never have been able to legally buy a gun in the first place.
Red flag laws are based on no evidence or standards. it is an end around to due process. One year in king county Wa the cops called in 69/71 red flag orders so they could end around due process and they are literally just rubber stamped by judges. GET A CONVICTION FAT FUCK. Also, red flag laws prevent people from seeing mental health professionals because doing so can cause you to get red flagged and cops to murder you in a no knock raid while taking your guns
>>
>>729447
>>Under the law: spouses; cohabitants; relatives by blood, marriage or adoption; a person with children in common; current dating or intimate partner; current or former legal guardian; a law enforcement officer or a medical professional who examined the person, can seek an extreme risk protective order, according to the Maryland Judiciary.
>https://www.capitalgazette.com/news/ac-cn-red-flag-20191001-zjzsbra735eatkkm2qmobz5z4a-story.html
>
>Not a real gun grab.
people came to his home and murdered him while taking his guns. Sounds like gun grab. Also sounds like a good way to prevent people from seeing mental health professionals ever and for domestic abusers and ex's to have their partners or relatives guns grabbed with ZERO EVIDENCE OR DUE PROCESS. Get a conviction, fat fuck
>>
>>729449
The guy was crazy, Anon, which is why his gun was being taken away.

From the article:

>That morning would end with the death of Willis, the only known fatality during the year since Maryland’s red flag law — designed to take weapons away from people who pose an extreme risk to themselves or others — went into effect on Oct. 1, 2018. Almost since the first day, Anne Arundel County has led the state in the number of applications for red flag orders.
...
>Confiscating guns because of court orders isn’t new, Altomare said. Law enforcement officers have been doing so when judges issue mandate it as a condition of a regular protective order. Still, it’s a dangerous duty for his officers that he does not take lightly.

>“I think they’re inherently dangerous,” Altomare said. “You have an already articulated emotional health crisis going on. There has to be threat communicated for the order to have been given … by definition, you’re entering a tense, dangerous situation.”
>>
>>729450
Nice circular logic.

>>729451
The dude was literally mentally ill, Anon, I don't know what else to tell you.
>>
>>729448
>https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/misinformation-outlasts-virginia-gun-bill/
>Here’s what it actually proposed: Making the sale and purchase of “assault firearms” illegal. It defined an “assault firearm,” largely, as a semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun.
lol okay
>>
>>729455
lol
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/dec/20/facebook-posts/twitter-bots-spread-white-supremacists-bogus-story/
>>
>>729452
>The guy was crazy, Anon,
So why didn't they involuntarily commit him or get him mentally adjudicated. Those involve a court trial. Being "crazy" does not bar people from owning guns. Being involuntarily commit him or mentally adjudicated does./
>>
>>729452
>No bro you totally have rights in this country... unless we think you're crazy. Then fuck your rights, fuck due process, turn 'em in or else we'll kill you.
>>
>>729458
Who's going to pay for that? Taxpayers?

>>729459
Mentally ill people haven't been able to legally purchase guns since the 1920s. When it's found out they are in possession of one it's taken away. There is nothing wrong with this.
>>
>>729454
>Nice circular logic.
elaborate
>>
>>729456
Yeah this totally proves that Virginia isn't trying to ban assault rifles.
>>
>>729454
>The dude was literally mentally ill, Anon, I don't know what else to tell you.
Being mentally ill does not mean you lose your right to buy or own a gun federally. See the ADA and section 504. Disabled people are people. You need to involuntarily commit someone to make them lose their rights. Being "crazy" without a trial is not a good reason. And all this law does is prevent people from seeking mental health professionals
>>
>>729461
>Who's going to pay for that? Taxpayers?
You have a right to due process and a trial you retard. It is in the bill of rights
>>
>>729461
>Mentally ill people haven't been able to legally purchase guns since the 1920s.
Yeah but the thing is we did have a process for this where a guy could at least go to court and argue his case that he's not insane - and THEN the judge decides whether he is or not. But I guess that made too much fucking sense.
>>
>>729463
Welp, better buy more guns now before it's too late go--I mean guy,
>>
>>729461
>Mentally ill people haven't been able to legally purchase guns since the 1920s.
CITATION NEEDED
>>
>>729454
>Nice circular logic.
Not an argument
>>
>>729470
Which is what people are doing... at inflated price because they waited until the last minute to do so. The next four years are really going to suck for gun owners. Even more interesting with COVID and the riots.

Good thing I already got mine.
>>
>>729474
>>729470
>>729436
>tfw bought my AR on sale in February. Bought my .22 at normal price in bulk in march when the lockdowns happened. Managed to get optics for normal price. Overpaid on 5.56, but it was like $0.40 per round which is not bad considering what it is now
>>
>>729474
Yes, excellent. Just as planned.
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/SWBI:NASDAQ?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV_oiQ9YDtAhUJW60KHY7qDW4Q3ecFMAB6BAgCEBk&comparison=NYSE%3ARGR%2CNYSE%3AOLN
>>
>>729477
but but my one day fall
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-stocks-tumble-as-election-uncertainties-sparked-worries-of-reduced-demand-2020-11-04
>>
>>729477
>No see this was Smith and Wesson's plan all along: put Biden in so they can have a huge sale for about 90 days, then have at least four years where their product is now illegal and can't be sold. Brilliant! Quality logic!
>>
>>729479
>>729477
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/gun-stocks-fall-after-vaccine-news-lack-of-election-related-civil-unrest-report
>>
>>729477
>>729479
>>729481
compare it to Sturm Ruger and sort by YTD
>>
>>729461
>Who's going to pay for that? Taxpayers?
>What next, free attorneys for poor people in jail that can't afford one? Are you some kind of commie?
>>
>>729484
I know. I just saw retards talking about that the other day and not realizing it was due to the dems losing house seats, getting raped in state legislatures, and not gaining the senate
>>
What's interesting is a lot of people on the left bought guns for the first time this year and then voted for a man who wants to take them away.
>>
>>729495
They are retards anon. What do you expect from people who vote for slavery>
>>
>>729429
>gun laws in Virginia
a decade ago Virginia was literally one of the most pro-gun states in the entire country. Even more than most conservative states. WTF happened to them?
>>729433
Harris explicitly said she wants to confiscate people's guns. Biden said he wants to ban """"""assault weapons""""""" and also wants to ban the online sale of guns/ammo.
>>
>>729437
Holy shit a politician said they're gonna do something and you believe it so effortlessly? How do you not grasp that you are the type of smoothbrain these gun companies get to purchase MOAR GUNS? Oh man I bet you think Biden is a Socialist too lol. Do you post on Parler?
>>
>>729544
>a decade ago Virginia was literally one of the most pro-gun states in the entire country. Even more than most conservative states. WTF happened to them?
Fags moved into the north of the state as a DC suburb and Bloomberg spent billions there to try to ban guns
>>
>>729546
I believe politicians are telling the truth only when they say they want to do something evil and gun control is evil
>>
>>729450
But cops are highly skilled individuals who never use more force than necessary. And since they don't seem to be doubting the necessity of these laws, clearly we must back them up.
>>
>>729565
kek, only when the cops are cracking commie skulls. They shouldn't be supported when they are attacking actual humans.
>>
>>729429

im sorry, if i remember correctly gun stocks are currently in the gutter because of the LACK of post-election civil unrest

aka: trump fags are too pussy to do anything besides bitch on Facebook
>>
>>729546
Lets see... says he's going to ban guns... helped make the assault weapons ban in the 90's... tried to help Feinstein ban guns after Sandy Hook... yeah I'm sure he's bullshitting.
>>
>>729574
see>>729484
>>729479
retard. Weird how the dems are violent retards. And the GOP retained the senate, picked up house seats, and picked up state legislatures
>>
>>729582

definitely!!! we totally won!!!!!!! super pumped how much the GOP is WINNING!! right!!! who needs the presidency?? right?
>>
>>729596
>gop keep Biden from doing dick
>GOP picks up house seats in 2022
>GOP trifecta in 2024 election (and GOP gerrymandering because state legislatures draw the districts)
>Bryer dies, thomas and Alito retire
>New president appoints 3 25 year old /pol/ shit posters
>7-2 GOP scotus
Also you know, keeping the dems from doing dick and owning the scotus means bye bye gun control and dems can't do dick about it
>>
>>729597

lol ok lemme check back wit u in 4 years bruh
>>
>>729596
Actually, Republicans ARE winning.

They won the senate and even made gains in the house. But the important thing is, they've maintained control of the senate and packed the courts before Biden got elected. 6 to 3 majority; SIX to 3.
This means that the left is going to get its shit pushed in for at least a decade in the courts, and a shit ton of things (Possibly even Roe vs. Wade or obamacare) may be invalidated.
Meanwhile, the left won't be able to ever negate this via court packing, because the only chance they ever had to do so without a public pushback was now due to being able to point to the hypocrisy of republicans on the supreme court. But the public has a horribly short memory: Even 4 years is too much, sentiment will have cooled by then.

meanwhile, even if a supreme court justice were to retire or die, there's zero chance of the republicans confirming a biden nominee; They'll just stall and bullshit until the next presidential election, or demand a conservative one. Fuck, Biden is going to have to suck McConnels dick JUST to get a cabinet. Think about that: Simply to function as a president, he'll have to get on his knees and beg McConnel.
Sure, the house is under democratic control, but as the last 4 years have demonstrated remarkably well, that thing is about as powerful as a fart in a hurricane: the senate is where all the actual power is.

So yes. Its really hard to quantify the current situation as anything BUT republicans winning.
>>
>>729599

ok keep refreshing breitbardt hoping even a single trump voter fraud lawsuit will move past the first circuit. also kill yourself fag
>>
>>729601
I never said the presidency will remain in trump's hands: Biden won that.

But Biden is going to be utterly powerless and at the whims of McConnel for the next 4 years, while the Supreme court will be devestatingly tilted in the right's favor.
Biden is going to be the most inneffectual president in recent history given the state of other branches of government.
>>
>>729601
>will move past the first circuit
You realize court circuits are based on location and not level right? 1st circuit is Maine, Mass NH and RI
>>
>>729601
Might be worth he's also appointed more circuit court judges than any previous president.

Though I suspect he was less particular about those, just requiring an (R) after their name, rather than being responsible for previous electoral frauds, unlike his last two SCOTUS pics. Due to everything the guy yer replying to is bringing up, there's little motive for Republicans to be remembered as the party that ended democracy in the country. They are sitting fairly pretty, likely for decades to come, regardless of what happens - and what is happening, isn't particularly bad for them as it is. Plus, it'll open up opportunities to start appealing to their mainstream again, which isn't really possible under Trump, save through the young blind but loud monsters he encourages in the opposing party.

Plus, weak, extremely moderate, lame duck president, with a long history of voting across the aisle, with an equally lame duck, law and order oreo at his side for brownie points, with a long history of cracking down on destitute blacks, and actually has far less power as VP than she did in congress. It's pretty much win-win.
>>
>>729611

yeah you def got it figured out man. nothing will happen. should've just kept the fascist in power
>>
>>729623
No one's saying trump wouldn't have been worse for democrats.
But just because you get a small victory doesn't mean you're not getting the shit kicked out of your regardless.
>>
>>729623
>should've just kept the fascist in power
Because thats how fascism works, you can just vote the fascist out and replace him with a Certified Not-Fascist™, you fucking lemming
>>
>>729546
>How do you not grasp that you are the type of smoothbrain these gun companies get to purchase MOAR GUNS?

Did you miss the part where I already got mine and only fucking idiots are buying now? Though I suppose I'm being too harsh on first-time buyers that vote left. They're new to firearms after all.

Seriously no reasonable person is paying $2,000 for a shitty Smith and Wesson AR-15 - if you can even find one in stock!
>>
>>729623
Well, what could happen, is the nation could calm the fuck down with the fucking identity politics, since the president basically can do dick, folks get less passionate when it's a debate between a few hundred politicians, instead of some loud idiot on Twitter egging on the worst of both parties. So maybe roughly half of the electorate can finally stop calling the other half communists and nazis, and finally realize they ultimately want the same shit.

...and since Biden can't do much with the presidency anyways, maybe he'll take steps to finally remove some of the ludicrous power the throne has accumulated over the years - McConnell and the rest of the GOP probably won't hesitate much to put more limits on his power, if he volunteers for it. Maybe the office will be reduced to such a degree we'll never have to worry have to being ruled by a king ever again, and ludicrous decisions that wreck lives all over the world will have to go through more than one head before the shit hits the fan.

Okay, neither of those things will happen, but I can dream... Really, the country needs a nice healthy serving of lame duck for a few years to stand any hope of getting back on track to things that actually matter.
>>
Can't find a Glock19 gen5 for love or money anywhere.

Have a steady well paying job, good friends and family, but I can't own the specific handgun I want.

Problems in my life I have to deal with.
>>
>>729653
And you didn't buy it last year because...
>>
>>729644
More likely McConnell and the Republicans will just bide their time until they're back in full control in 2024, and then they'll continue their march toward a unitary executive. Their complaining about government power is only ever a temporary holding pattern they keep up when there's a Democrat in the White House. As soon as there's a Republican President they pick up exactly where they left off.
>>
>>729644
McConnell's desire to limit Biden won't have anything to do with a desire to limit the power of the presidency. He's going to block Biden on everything so that Biden can't do anything to stop the bleeding that COVID and the accompanying economic collapse have caused, ensuring that Biden and the democrats will be blamed for everything and give the GOP an easy path back into power. And next time, their presidential candidate probably won't be a laughably incompetent wannabe authoritarian, but a much more capable autocrat who will guarantee republican control for the rest of the nation's existence regardless of how unpopular they become.
>>
>>729665
I'm hoping for trump (or one of his sons) to insist on being the nominee and then running third party if they're snubbed out of pure ego, splintering the republicans in a glorious shit show.
>>
>>729666
Don Jr. is quite popular in some right-wing circles, so he honestly might get the nomination over the establishment candidates much like how his father managed to take the nomination from out of a field of candidates that included some establishment favorites.

But I think it's more likely that it will be someone else. Someone more "pure." Trump never really had any ideology beyond self-aggrandizement. I think the next "Trumpist" candidate will be someone more ideologically zealous. Honestly, I think the template for Republicans going forward won't be Trump, but rather someone like Bill Barr. Not Barr himself, of course, but someone in that mold.

Reagan's GOP was an alliance of religious conservatives and big business. Thesis. Trump brings a total disregard for norms and a following of nationalists who want a killer with no limits for a leader, someone they think will destroy the "degenerates" and whip the country into shape with "tough medicine," aka brutality. Antithesis.

These two sides clashed for a while. Trump didn't get along with the old establishment types like Mitt Romney, and even people who had once been considered firebrands, people like Paul Ryan, weren't ruthless enough or shameless enough to really get along with Trump. Then there's Bill Barr. On the one hand, he's got elements of the old, religious conservatism in particular. On the other hand, he has the willingness to go along with Trump, because his authoritarian view of executive power means he honestly thinks the President should be able to do as he pleases. Synthesis.

The next leader of the GOP will be someone who combines the elements of the old, religious conservatism and cutthroat capitalism, with elements of the new, nationalism and authoritarianism. It will be a GOP that plays to tribal loyalties like religion, tradition, and nationalism, while also having a core of might makes right, where strength is held above all else and the strong leader has no limits.
>>
>>729644
>and finally realize they ultimately want the same shit.
no, the dems want to take my guns and make me a slave. We do not want the same shit
>>
>>729644
>and ludicrous decisions that wreck lives all over the world will have to go through more than one head before the shit hits the fan.
what decision did trump ever make that "ruined lives"?
>>
>>729653
Why did you wait until now to get a glock 19? Like I can get having issues with getting a sig p365 or a hellcat because those were sold out all over before coof, but a glock 19?
>>
>>729669
Eh I think if anyone from Trump's cabinet gets it, it'd be Pompeio. He's had his eye on the nomination for awhile and can point to his work in the ME now. Plus he has managed to keep himself away from most of Trump's stupider moments and he is sane enough to court the moral conservatives.

Only thing that would stop him would be if Trump label's him deep state and doesn't get behind him.
>>
>>729461
>implying the tax payers aren't paying for the police to go to this guys house and shoot him
I'll admit, so long as there is no settlement this is cheaper. Though I wonder if you really want to open the Judge Dredd can of worms you are jimmying at with this type of comment.
>>
>>729858
They want safety, just like you do, and both parties value freedom, they just have different ideas on how to go about defending it, so each views the other as assaulting it.

>>729859
Every president is responsible for countless deaths, no need to go after Trump's tally in particular, as it certainly gets quoted often enough around these parts. The office is far too powerful, and completely unanswerable, so long as either chamber of congress is held by the same party. Executive orders, complete control of all three military branches, ability to declare war for 90 days, by which time it's too late to go back, ability to bypass congressional power of the purse, ability to ignore SCOTUS. That throne needs to go. While even Trump didn't exercise its full power, he certainly helped highlight the potential for its abuse.
>>
>>729923
>They want safety, just like you do
They want slaves.
>, and both parties value freedom,
demonstrably false. My governor received an email from everytown for gun safety asking him to ban sales due to the uptick in first time buyers, so he did at the start of covid and then admitted in a press conference that he did it so there would be "fewer guns". This statement was so important that the state NRA group originally didn't sue for fear of the courts setting a bullshit precedent over the virus, immediately sued and the governor announced the next day that gun shops would reopen because he knew that statement would lose him the court case.
Dems want me stripped of my rights and thrown in a death camps
>>
>>729923
>Every president is responsible for countless deaths, no need to go after Trump's tally in particular, as it certainly gets quoted often enough around these parts. The office is far too powerful, and completely unanswerable, so long as either chamber of congress is held by the same party. Executive orders, complete control of all three military branches, ability to declare war for 90 days, by which time it's too late to go back, ability to bypass congressional power of the purse, ability to ignore SCOTUS. That throne needs to go. While even Trump didn't exercise its full power, he certainly helped highlight the potential for its abuse.
I agree the president has too much power. What I do not agree on is Trump being bad. He literally did nothing bad and didn't harm anyone. The only thing he ever did wrong was the bumpstock ban
>>
>>729923
>They want safety, just like you do
They want control. You're naive if you think the Democratic party (or the Republican, but I digress) cares about your safety. More like they want to use your deaths to push an agenda.
>and both parties value freedom
Positive vs. Negative rights.
>>
>>729962
>if you think the Democratic party (or the Republican, but I digress) cares about your safety.
Speaking more of the membership, rather than the collective party, which yes, only cares about its own power. But your average Joe Blow Democrat and Republican value the freedom to live their lives as choose, within the bounds of what can be granted and still leave them secure... And even a lot of the politicians in both parties put a high value on freedom, some of the worst of them only attacking freedoms as they see the opposing party as the ultimate threat to freedom.

>Positive vs. Negative rights
Ultimately a meaningless distinction, but both parties defend both varieties, not that any rights exist, beyond your and your society's willingness to defend them.
>>
>>729966
>Speaking more of the membership, rather than the collective party, which yes, only cares about its own power. But your average Joe Blow Democrat and Republican value the freedom to live their lives as choose, within the bounds of what can be granted and still leave them secure... And even a lot of the politicians in both parties put a high value on freedom, some of the worst of them only attacking freedoms as they see the opposing party as the ultimate threat to freedom.
The average democrat is a democrat because they want to own slaves. Go ask someone why they voted left wing and they will tell you something about being entitled to the labor of others.
>Ultimately a meaningless distinction, but both parties defend both varieties, not that any rights exist, beyond your and your society's willingness to defend them.
To democrats, owning slaves is a right but self defense isn't
>>
>>729969
Sure.
>>
>>729976
Why do you support the dems?
>>
>>729988
Not him but it shouldn't come as a surprise. This is a center-left nation.
>>
>>729989
Dems are far, far left. I want to hear what policies you support the dems for.
>>
>>729995
>please play mind games with me, it's lonely here
>please, I'll post tons of ridiculous shit, please play with me
>>
>>730004
You can't even answer the question, because all the dems policies involve stealing money from the middle class to give to the lazy
>>
>>729989
It's a center right nation, on its most altruistic day. We're far to the right of the rest of the developed world. Though, that's in part, by founding design.

>>729988
I don't. I don't support the GOP either. Traditionally, the Democrats at least tend to be the more moderate of the two, in their efforts to toss a wider net, but Trump seems to have given the extremists among them more voice than they've ever had before, so now neither party is looking real promising. So yes, I'd rather have Biden there, as at least then both these maniacs are deadlocked and have to rely on their middle ground more.

Both parties, however, are full of human beings who largely want the same things, and I support them, at least, if not the monsters they've created via this meaningless allegiance. They've have just been blinded by the totems they've built of one another. Since the two parties have declared every philosophy in existence as part of one of their two spheres, whenever you run into a problem that requires a nuanced combination of approaches, the nation is paralyzed to deal with it as a result of these two parties, as it is whenever one party or the other declares something an issue, and the other party, instead of offering an alternate solution, decides generating salt is more important, and so tries to make it worse. (Be it illegal immigration or climate change.)

>>729995
>Dems are far, far left.
They aren't even as left as Sanders, who would be a centrist, if this was Europe, and it took Trump for them to take him at all seriously. The far left would not institute a Newt Gingrich designed, Mitt Romney implemented, "health care plan", that leaves health care in the hands of private insurance, much less be responsible for the largest reduction in welfare in the nation's history.
>>
>>730009
We all know youre fishing bro. Go outside.
>>
>>730009
Unlike the right who takes it from the middle class to give more tax breaks and handouts to the mega rich? And if you actually think the bulk of the Democratic party is far to the left you're retarded. They're almost as right wing as the republicans. Only the "justice democrats" approach left wing and the Democratic establishment hates them.
>>
>>730010
>We're far to the right of the rest of the developed world.
USA is the only developed nation. The rest are run by human rights deniers
>>
>>730010
>Traditionally, the Democrats at least tend to be the more moderate of the two,
How is banning guns moderate?
> So yes, I'd rather have Biden there, as at least then both these maniacs are deadlocked and have to rely on their middle ground more.
so you want a human rights denier president?
>Both parties, however, are full of human beings
There are no humans on the left, only commies.
>Be it illegal immigration
Illegals should be deported
Also dems want to strip me of my human rights
>>
>>730010
>They aren't even as left as Sanders, who would be a centrist, if this was Europe,
The idea that anti gun pro slavery bribe taking sanders is a centrist is laughable. Sanders believes the American people are his property.
>>
>>730012
See, you can't answer the question
>>
>>730015
>Unlike the right who takes it from the middle class to give more tax breaks and handouts to the mega rich?
Trump's tax cuts cut taxes for 2/3rds of Americans. I saved $2,000 from his cuts and my effective rate went down over 2.5%. Harris said day one her admin plans to repeal the tax cut and raise my taxes by $2,000. Dems are anti middle class
> And if you actually think the bulk of the Democratic party is far to the left you're retarded. They're almost as right wing as the republicans. Only the "justice democrats" approach left wing and the Democratic establishment hates them.
Dems want to strip me of my rights and see me as a slave. They are far left
>>
>>730022
Not him but try asking a question that doesn't involve a false premise for once.
>>
>>730023
Trump's tax cuts expired for the middle class this year, while their corporate tax giveaways are permanent. Biden/Harris's proposed tax policy is not to tax people who make less than 400k a year.
>>
>>730023
What's your annual income?
>>
>>730015
>And if you actually think the bulk of the Democratic party is far to the left you're retarded. They're almost as right wing as the republicans.
WEW LAD.... Since the context of this thread is gun control can you explain to me why every single Democratic candidate - from Biden to Bernie to Tulsi to Yang - wanted an assault weapons ban and red flag laws? That you had to really dig and research for a Dem candidate that you never heard of who was running and didn't outright admit they wanted to ban AR-15s?

Then explain to me how banning guns is considered right wing.
>in before Reagan did it so checkmate atheists
>>
>>730028
There is no false premise in what I am stating
>>
>>730029
>Trump's tax cuts expired for the middle class this year, while their corporate tax giveaways are permanent.
Because the dems filibuster the bill because they didn't want to give a tax cut to the middle class, so it had to go through reconciliation and reconciliation budget requirements required the sun setting. Dems could extend them, like they extended the bush tax cuts when obongo was president.
>Biden/Harris's proposed tax policy is not to tax people who make less than 400k a year.
By repealing (and harris said they will repeal the Trump tax cut day one) the tax cut my taxes will go up. By refusing to extend it, my taxes will go up. Biden and Harris want to raise my taxes.
>>730031
$60,000. By refusing to extend the tax cut and saying they want to repeal it, they are saying they want to raise my taxes by nearly $2,000. Also they want to tax my guns I already own.
>>
>>730039
Because obongo said they wouldn't get party funding if they weren't anti gun.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/opinion/president-barack-obama-guns-are-our-shared-responsibility.html
And because the dems want to put people in death camps/enslave them. See the soviets taking guns to prevent a counter revolution
>>
>>730066
>Because the dems filibuster the bill because they didn't want to give a tax cut to the middle class
The exact opposite was true. The dems filibustered because the allowances for the corporate tax section were far more luxurious.
>repealing (and harris said they will repeal the Trump tax cut day one)
Your tax rate will go down by the Biden plan.
>By refusing to extend the tax cut and saying they want to repeal it, they are saying they want to raise my taxes by nearly $2,000.
Absolute brainlet. Your taxes were going to increase under Trump's plan: the same plan that you're exalting. The only bracket were you are actively paying less within the next decade is if you make well over 100k+ a year.
>>
>>730092
>The exact opposite was true. The dems filibustered because the allowances for the corporate tax section were far more luxurious.
uh huh totally, then why didn't the dems agree to extend the tax cuts for the middle class at any point after the bill went though? Why does Harris want to repeal the bill to raise taxes on the middle class so bad?
>Your tax rate will go down by the Biden plan.
Nope. Repealing the Trump tax cut/letting it sunset will raise my taxes by around $2000
>Absolute brainlet. Your taxes were going to increase under Trump's plan: the same plan that you're exalting. The only bracket were you are actively paying less within the next decade is if you make well over 100k+ a year.
I saved with Trump's tax law. It will soon sunset and will go back to obongo era taxes unless biden passes and signs an extension like what happened under obongo with the Bush tax cuts. Harris said they will repeal the Trump tax bill, so obviously Biden won't extend it. Biden wants to raise my taxes and blame it on a sunsetting law that only sunsets because the fucking dems filibustered
>>
>>730101
>letting it sunset
They were always designed to sunset in 2020. That's the con game the republicans pulled on you.
>>
>>730020
>How is banning guns moderate?
No, and no one is talking about a universal gun ban, but since the "conservative originalist" Justice Scalia decided the 2nd amendment was defunct as a defense against tyranny, and only applies to self defence, no one has managed to undo, for instance, AR-15 bans.

On the plus side, the same decision also incorporated the 2nd, so now the states can't just take all your guns, whereas before the only thing they were limited by was political will.

But Biden can't do dick, regardless of what he wants in that department, and given how the entire judicial branch is slanted, both SCOTUS and the circuits, neither can anyone else, for the next 20-30 years.

>so you want a human rights denier president?
I'm unfamiliar with which human rights Biden is denying, though it seems every president wants to eliminate some human right or another - the last one seemed to be willing to discard quite a few, certainly. The advantage to a deadlock, is no one can deny anything that both parties aren't willing to agree upon.

>There are no humans on the left, only commies.
Yes, as we've been told, and everyone on the right are nazis who want to kill all the gay and brown people while instituting a theocracy. Very good citizen, keep playing your assigned role.
>>
>>730039
>ban ar 15s

Good. You don't need them except in novelty. They are garbage hunting guns, they are garbage home defense guns, and the rounds are so expensive they make trash range guns as well.

>but my right to stage an insurrection

If shit comes to that your local/internet gun dealer will not be able to get you the amount of guns you need. Period. You would have to source guns illegally anyway making whatever laws passed against them kinda moot. I'd say raiding a millitary base for guns would be more effective than trying to buy them though an easily tracked source. I'd be almost like a free honey pot for the atf.
>but muh stockpile
Do you really think in the age of information the atf isn't keeping tabs of any collection of long rifles over 100 count? You would just be setting up traps for yourself to get arrested when you and your "Militia" decided it was day zero and went for the stockpile.
>>
>>730115
>Good. You don't need them except in novelty.
NEED
also they are good guns. You are obviously a no gunz faggot. They are super reliable and light and comfy to shoot.
>They are garbage hunting guns,
second amendment doesn't say dick about hunting. People hunt with ARs (see things like .350 legend) and they are great at killing predators like coyotes.
>they are garbage home defense guns,
Retard alert. Did you not see how devastating M193 is within fragmentation range when Kyle used on in Kenosha
> and the rounds are so expensive they make trash range guns as well.
How is $0.30 a round expensive. That is literally as cheap as you are going to get outside of 9mm, .22, and com block surplus. All full sized rifle rounds are going to be at least $0.50 per round.
>If shit comes to that your local/internet gun dealer will not be able to get you the amount of guns you need. Period. You would have to source guns illegally anyway making whatever laws passed against them kinda moot. I'd say raiding a millitary base for guns would be more effective than trying to buy them though an easily tracked source. I'd be almost like a free honey pot for the atf.
There are 400 million guns in private hands in the USA. In the last 10 years Americans have bought more small arms than all the world's militaries combined.
>>
>>730115
>They are garbage hunting guns
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA motherfucker. Stop right there. Clearly you have no fucking clue what you're on about.
>they are garbage home defense guns
Do I even need to?
> and the rounds are so expensive they make trash range guns as well.
... What?!?

>the rest of your post
I literally can't even.
>>
>>730115
>ar-15
>garbage hunting/home defense guns
Oh I love it when Democrats talk about things they know nothing about, be it guns or freedom.
>>
>>729923
>They want safety
They want to defund the police, drop charges against rioters, prevent us from having the means to defend ourselves, make self-defense illegal (eg Kenosha Kyle), and flood the country with illegal immigrants from third-world countries.

That's the opposite of us being safe. How safe would a white person in a Trump hat be walking around a Democrat city at night?
>>
imagine you are 50 years old this year and you are, once again, out buying guns because you expect the "commie libtard maoist" who got elected to be president will order a mass gun reclamation.
And you did this in 2008 when Obama won. Maybe in 2012 if you thought Obama was waiting for the 2nd term win to snatch the 2nd amendment away. And so you might buy more again in 2024 if the libtard commie fascist wins again.
how do you qualify for enough food stamps to save up to buy all these guns like every decade at most to every 4 years at least?
>>
>>730187
>how do you qualify for enough food stamps to save up to buy all these guns like every decade at most to every 4 years at least?
I was following along until this part. You do realize that A) people have jobs, B) smart people buy when prices are low and C) guns don't really cost that much during a Republican presidency, right? Two years ago I could have bought at least three or four glocks each payday, or 1 to 2 AR-15s every two weeks. I really don't get where you're going with this.
>>
>>730187
If they are 50 years old then they are old enough to remember the original AWB in 1994. And old enough to remember when cities like DC and Chicago tried to ban guns but SCOTUS saved them. And maybe their generation is smart enough to pay attention to politics, like Biden saying he wants a new AWB and Harris saying she wants gun confiscation. And smart enough to realize that we've had 6 months of rioting which Democrats said was okay and that police shouldn't prevent. And now Democrats want to abolish the police too.

But you're a Zoomer brainlet who didn't know any of that and Twitter told you that you don't need a gun so you decide to mock boomers
>>
>>730168
...and they want to not be lynched by skinheads, beaten to death by gay haters, cooked by jew haters, left in the deep desert by beaner haters, not get their kids shot on mass every few months, not be RAPED, etc. etc.

Again, same desire, different approach.

The only reason all these goals are mutually exclusive is party politics, so we get this odd situation where America must choose between being shot or raped (or who will be shot or raped).
>>
>>730251
Well, that, and they suffer from this delusion that these gun laws make them safer, of course. Not that the other side of that firearm tug of war doesn't have similar delusions of their own. Just, personally, I think they are all overruled by the Jeffersonian ideal, but sadly, the conservatives on SCOTUS, of all groups, kinda killed that in 2010/12.
>>
>>730212
None of which involved a mass gun reclamation, even of registered automatics. Not that what they did wasn't wrong in terms of core American principle, and Chicago went beyond the pale of all reason, even by some European standards, but the mechanisms designed to prevent such abuse held.
>>
>>730187
>how do you qualify for enough food stamps
why do you hate poor ppl to the point that you think accusing someone of being on food stamps is an insult? i thought the anti-trump crowd was strongly in favor of the social safety net.
>>
>>730263
I find it hard to believe you're so rich and disconnected from reality that you don't realize even the poorest of the poor feel ashamed about being on food stamps. Let alone that you'd fail to realize he's simply using your own insult against you.

Heck, there are folks who lost limbs at work getting SDI that feel ashamed for taking that dole.
>>
>>730265
>Heck, there are folks who lost limbs at work getting SDI that feel ashamed for taking that dole.
maybe it wouldn't be like that if you weren't defending people who use accusations of food stamp acceptance as an insult.
you people will turn right around and also insult people for having jobs which you consider not sufficiently intellectual; truck drivers, plumbers, construction workers, dock workers and the like get no respect from the libshit crowd either.
>>
>>730275
And "you people" insult people on any form of welfare, regardless of how inevitable or justified, even from employers, as you do everything you can to destroy worker's rights, hoping one day you can be an employer and defacto own slaves instead of being forced to work with fellow human beings... All while insulting intellectualism or intellectual pursuit of any type, ignoring the scientific advice of people with decades more training and experience in their specific field, just to prove that dumb is better, like some sorta wiggers who are such animals they can only think with their dicks, turning everything into a zero sum game of dickmenship.

See how constructive this is? See how much progress we're making here? Surely this is the path to fulfill all our desires!

I'm not sure, however, if I can play enough rounds of tic-tac-toe to teach the flesh born computer of the futility of the game.
>>
>>730251
I'm not that guy but,
>...and they want to not be lynched by skinheads,
The vast vast majority of people, regardless of skin colour, do not suffer anything like this, it is an issue made by the media to look far more endemic than it actually is. That's not to trivialise the cases where that actually happens but those are isolated cases that should not be at the forfront of the debate. One thing that would stop such victimisation would be allowing and encouraging potentual victims of this to own and carry guns.
>beaten to death by gay haters,
Same as above. Also see pink pistols.
>cooked by jew haters,
Doesn't happen, show me one case where a jewish person was set on fire or anything like that (unless this is just a generic "you disagree with my left wing point of view therefor you're a nazi" non-argument).
>left in the deep desert by beaner haters,
You're the one using a racial slur, plus they wouldn't die in the desert if they followed the law.
>not get their kids shot on mass every few months,
This is a valid point, but school shootings would be much better stopped by allowing CCW holders to carry in schools/abolishing gun free zones/victim disarmament zones/free fire zones and would definatly not be stopped by any form of "assault weapon" ban "high capacity" magazine ban or other weapon ban, such things have been indisputably proven to not work.
>not be RAPED, etc. etc.
What the fuck are you even trying to say? No one is in favour of rape, do you know one thing that would lead to less women getting raped? Allowing and encouraging more women to own and carry guns.

>>730258
>None of which involved a mass gun reclamation, even of registered automatics.
"Lol dude what do you mean stopping any more people of colour into public office is racist, we're not kicking out any of the existing one's, they can stay, see not racist".
This is what you sound like.
>>
>>730251
>...and they want to not be lynched by skinheads
Something that hasn't happened since the 50s???
>not be RAPED
You know there's this great deterrent to rapists that help even the playing field for women and those who would be victims of rape. You'll never guess what it is.

Here's a hint: look up Amanda Collins. And then pat yourself on the back for being part of the group that made sure she was a victim.

Because Democrats really care about women after all lol amirite?

Seriously do look this up. Especially the video where Amanda is testifying to Senator Hudak. I want you to feel like the piece of shit you are for voting for these "people".
>>
>>730312
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
>>
>>730299
>, it is an issue made by the media to look far more endemic than it actually is.
This is the stance the public took in 2010. We are now neck deep in neo-nazis. Ignoring the issue didn't work it made it worse.

>school shooting
There where more mass shooting last year than days in the year. This isn't a once every month or 2 thing it is an every day thing. Do you know how many conceal and carry twats did anything about those over 400 mass shooting? Absolutely nothing. It doesn't work and giving teachers, one of the most overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid in the nation the responsibility of now having to deal with shootings is to much. And unless you plan on posting g cops everywhere with wand detectors no gun zones don't exactly fucking work.
>>
>>730318
Alright fuckface.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics
tl;dr more concealed carriers = less crime
More women carrying guns = less chance of being raped.
>>
>>730327
>We are now neck deep in neo-nazis.
[citation needed]
>>
>>730327
>Do you know how many conceal and carry twats did anything about those over 400 mass shooting? Absolutely nothing.

This might sound crazy but concealed carry "twats" - and I really need you to focus on this one - follow the law.

So if the law says you can't bring guns into this zone... guess what they're not going to do.

>It doesn't work
Except for places where guns aren't banned, then it works just fine. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/a-good-guy-with-a-gun-has-saved-many-lives-in-florida-something-the-media-rarely-report

Fun fact: that shooter in Aurora picked the only movie theater in town that banned guns, not the largest or the closest.

>and giving teachers, one of the most overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid in the nation the responsibility of now having to deal with shootings is to much.
Giving teachers who may or may not be licensed carriers permission to carry on school grounds is not the same as forcing teachers to carry a gun if they don't want to ... but I'm sure you already knew that, right?

> no gun zones don't exactly fucking work.
... yeah. That's what we're sayi - did you just make an argument against your case?
>>
>>730327
>We are now neck deep in neo-nazis.
It is precisly this kind of exaggerated, alarmist language which makes people not take you seriously, the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of people with right wing opinions are not racists, the most racists parts of the world are not in the 1st world.
That's not even getting into the part where literally anyone who in any way disagrees with the opinions of the modern left can be catagorised as a nazi.
>There where more mass shooting last year than days in the year.
What's the definition of a mass shooting and why is a shooting worse than a stabbing, mob beating, burning, acid attack, vehicle ramming or any other attack that results in serious injury or death.
>Do you know how many conceal and carry twats did anything about those over 400 mass shooting? Absolutely nothing.
Factually incorrect, there have been many examples of mass shootings being stopped by CCW holders,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Aj0MAwO0Hk
Just one random example out of many I pulled up, just because the media doesn't spoon feed you every instance of this doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also virtually all mass shootings occur in gun free zones, or let me put it another way, people like you ensure laws are enacted and kept that specifically stop CCW holders from stopping mass shootings.
>giving teachers, one of the most overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid in the nation.
Completely agree.
>now having to deal with shootings is to much.
The chance of anyone being involved in any kind of mass shooting is so statistically insignificant that it really isn't a concern, plus I'm not advokating teachers being forced to undertake police/ccw training, simply the removel of gun free zones so that anyone who can legal carry outside the school can also carry inside the school if they want too.
>>
>>730327
>>730336
>And unless you plan on posting g cops everywhere with wand detectors no gun zones don't exactly fucking work.
Agree. But assault weapon bans also do not work, the idea that wether or not a rifle has a folding stock or boyonet lug or the magazine attached to it has 10 rounds or 30 rounds or 50 rounds in it (when reloading takes 2 seconds) makes any difference to anything is ridiculous. Though on some level I think anti-gun people understand this as such bans are only a stepping stone to more comprehensive gun bans (something they lie through their teeth about not wanting).
>>
>>730312
>Something that hasn't happened since the 50s???
I'm talking about perception, not necessarily reality here, but that, to one degree or the other, is the world a lot of people are living in.

And to be honest, while I've not known a lot of black people in my life, I do never got to know a single one who was not both physically assaulted primarily for the color of his skin and being in the wrong place or sleeping with the wrong color, who did not ALSO have a story of a black friend or relative who was killed in said fashion.

They may not hang them from trees anymore, but it still happens.

I have known a lot of gays, because I used to run a series goth clubs, and I can say the same of them, however irreparably heterosexual I myself sadly am.

...and I've known a lot of skinheads - because, again, goth clubs. Even called some of them friends, and they all either have stories of themselves or their friends beating some gay or brown near to death, setting a mosque or synagogue on fire, etc.

So yes, while the media exaggerates fear by its nature, always reporting on the bad and never on the good (which is particularly egregious when it comes to the police) - they have good reason to be afraid.

But yes, so do you.
>>
>>730341
Well, nevermind that MAGA always seemed to be defined as going back to the 1950's.

...and since taxes in the 1950's were more than triple what they are now, university level education was free in most states, socialist parties were not only on the ballot but held congressional seats, the border was practically unsecured compared to today (random checks, on passport required, no hundreds of miles of fence, no patrols outside the roads), six times the number of jobs in the private sector were unionized, and the economy was some tenth the size it is now... That leaves fewer gun restrictions and open racism as the only related Republican talking points.

>>730341
>But yes, so do you.
And what happens when two groups of frightened people come into conflict?
>>
>>729444
Kys
>>
>>730363
Follow your own advice.
>>
>>730187
Biden literally got an assault weapons ban passed in 1994-2004 right? The Dems took the house and senate in 1933 as a result of the great depression and FDR coming in and heald both chambers for the most part until 1995.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png
The backlash was so great from the biden awb that dems lost their control in the republican revolution. Dems kinda got a filibuster proof senate in 2009, but Ted Kennedy got a stroke in jan 2009 and the dems did not seat all 60 members until late in the year and used their power for obongo care, this was also because a group of Dem house members told Obongo not to waste his political capital on a gun ban.
http://snarkybytes.com/2009/03/18/house-democrats-stand-against-awb/
65 congressman was enough to block stuff in the house. After the 2012 election, Obongo had kids murdered at sandy hook, and went hard for guns trying to get an AWB and a secret government list to deny people without any due process or standards.
Obongo now bans anyone from getting dnc money if they dont vote antigun https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/opinion/president-barack-obama-guns-are-our-shared-responsibility.html
>>
>>730256
McDonald was good. States/cities have no right to deny people their gun rights
>>
>>730365
>>>/x/
>>
>>730368
I literally sourced shit, retard
>>
>>730365
The Brady Act was backed by former president Reagan, not Biden, who never even commented on it at the time.

The 1994 ban passed by only two Republican votes and both those Congressmen claimed it was Reagan’s backing the ban that changed their minds. Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin received a personal letter from Reagan asking him to change his vote and back the ban.

Biden didn't even have a say in it's creation, as the only committee he was ever on was Foreign Relations.

Biden, however, is responsible for 700 miles of Trump's wall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15djRzWG3_0

>>730363
The 2nd has SCOTUS and the fact that Trump appointed more circuit court judges than any president in history on its side, in addition to the fact that McConnell won't let Biden appoint any new judges - something he's proven he's really good at. The 2nd isn't going to see any sort of threat for least another 20-40 years, even if the GOP goes under and Democrats take every other branch of the government.

The right to bear arms, for self defense at least, has never been more secure.
>>
>>730371
>The Brady Act was backed by former president Reagan, not Biden, who never even commented on it at the time.
Clinton sighed it and Biden voted for it fag
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00394
>The 1994 ban passed by only two Republican votes and both those Congressmen claimed it was Reagan’s backing the ban that changed their minds. Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin received a personal letter from Reagan asking him to change his vote and back the ban.
Clinton was president at the time and Biden and the dems voted for it. 2/3 defectors does not make something bipartisan
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00375
>Biden didn't even have a say in it's creation, as the only committee he was ever on was Foreign Relations.
Biden voted for it and wrote the bill it was attached as an amendment to.
>>
>>730291
>defacto own slaves
Dems want to own slaves. Hence all the "free" shit at the worker's expense they promise
>>
>>730327
>There where more mass shooting last year than days in the year.
FALSE. There were 12. And fewer than 100 people were killed. Please stop lying faggot.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2019-042820.pdf/view
> It doesn't work and giving teachers, one of the most overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid in the nation the responsibility of now having to deal with shootings is to much.
I am a teacher, I would gladly ccw if I legally could.
>>
>>730341
>I'm talking about perception, not necessarily reality here
You don't say.
>but that, to one degree or the other, is the world a lot of people are living in.
I can't be held accountable for other's perception. This is ridiculous.

>And to be honest, while I've not known a lot of black people in my life, I do never got to know a single one who was not both physically assaulted primarily for the color of his skin and being in the wrong place or sleeping with the wrong color, who did not ALSO have a story of a black friend or relative who was killed in said fashion.
You mean their perception. Kind of like how black people perceive that cops are killing them because of racism and not because the guy they shot just tried to shoot them a second ago?

>They may not hang them from trees anymore, but it still happens.
Citation fucking needed. Actual events, not perception.

>and they all either have stories of themselves or their friends beating some gay or brown near to death, setting a mosque or synagogue on fire, etc.
Well if they said it in a goth club then it must be true. I mean why would anyone go to a bar and lie to people?
>>
>>730371
>not Biden, who never even commented on it at the time.
I'm not even going to fucking bother. I'm going to let the man himself speak for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AcBwijcIkg
>>
>>730375
>I can't be held accountable for other's perception. This is ridiculous.
And they can't be held accountable for yours. But only the foolish and borderline suicidal fail to take it into account.

>You mean their perception. Kind of like how black people perceive that cops are killing them because of racism and not because the guy they shot just tried to shoot them a second ago?
Well, there's a reason the media doesn't report on it, on those rare occasions its a cut and dry innocent killed - fear and anger is what they are trying to profit on, and an innocent being killed, only generates sympathy, which puts a damper on their whole profit base. But yes, I agree, the perception is inflated by said sensationalist stories. Really, I feel the media is more responsible for the dysfunctional state of the nation than even the two parties backing them.

...and then there's the ratio black on white violence problem that the right wing correctly, if inelegantly, likes to harp on.

On the other hand, when some sports star, who (rightly or wrongly) really believes his people are being systematically exterminated and imprisoned, takes the knee - and instead of CTR, the right loudly admonishes him for being a disobedient race horse... Kinda just confirming their worst fears.

>Citation fucking needed. Actual events, not perception.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses

>Well if they said it in a goth club then it must be true. I mean why would anyone go to a bar and lie to people?
Talking of friends, some of which I still have, rather than random strangers at the bar - not that I didn't get quite a lot of that too. A desire to see violent action is what unites these people - as well as the likes of Antifa. Two sides, same stupid coin - but the stupid coin nonetheless has some points, and despite this desire for violence, isn't pure evil, just a result of fear, leading to anger, dominating destiny and all that.
>>
>>730378
Jeeze, not one clip of speech from the man made earlier than 2019, go figure.

Not one fucking comment, at the time.
>>
>>730381
He literally voted for the bill you retard. How is that not supporting it ?
>>
>>730386
Along with all the other democrats.

He didn't write the bill, push the bill to the floor, or talk to anyone about it. He didn't do anything beyond the bare minimum to tow the party line. Reagan is FAR more responsible for that AWB than he is.

I'm not saying he doesn't want a AWB, mind you. I'm sure he sees it as the sane and practical thing to do for the same reasons Reagan did, and is of the same (IMO wrong) line thought that no one needs "military grade" weapons - just as Justice Scalia was. It, however, is not something he's historically supported more than any other Democrat (and he has a LONG history of being in a position to do so), and further, isn't anything he can actually achieve as president. (And even if he could, it wouldn't be anything of the mass gun reclamation folks have been predicting - even if it still wouldn't be to my liking.)

Though I will give you his is among the least likely Democrats to tow the party line, so the fact that he's willing to here, is a bad sign. Nonetheless, he could be fucking Dianne Feinstein's twin with a dick, and still couldn't do dick as president - actually having more power in that department as a senior senator.

Granted, the far left harped on him for this exchange:
>"You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns," one man accused Biden.
>"You're full of sh**," Biden snapped back. "I did not—no, no, shush. Shush. I support the Second Amendment."
...and has previously accused him of not being a gun control supporter, in that, and other Huffington post articles. In addition to harping on his previously strong support for border control, welfare reform, and the like.

He also voted against smart gun regulation, voted for the NRA backed Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA), (which created the "gun show loophole") claiming "measure that saved gun ownership as we know it.", and he is a gun owner himself.
>>
>>730381
>Jeeze, not one clip of speech from the man made earlier than 2019, go figure.
I'm sorry I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to use his past statements about guns, especially now that he's trying to appeal to voters and win an election - hoping everyone forgets how he really feels about the subject.
>>
>>730409
You literally included the critical preposition "at the time.", when you replied (>>730378)... And I wanted to give you some credit for not stripping it to scarecrow me, but ya kinda just killed that bit of respect.

Don't do that shit - I'm fully willing to admit he's gone full guncontroltard in his rhetoric today, to the point where it concerns me, but he's no real responsibility for the old AWB in question, and his previous voting history suggest he's as moderate on gun control as he is on everything else, regardless of his current bullshit. Actions, louder than words.

Sadly, I do not have a video of a closed-chambers conversation from him on that subject, unlike his 2006 speech about immigration (>>730371), to aleve fears and show a departure between his rhetoric and what he actually gets riled up about - beyond the actions listed in the post yonder (>>730399).
>>
>>730399
yeah, pitch that fit and scream and cry on the ground because once again you insist on believing the lie that a liberal president guarantees an end to the 2nd amendment
Gonna go out and buy another dozen rifles and pistols to assuage your ego about it? Promise me you'll go down shooting.
>>
>>730420
...and I hope you would, but this is neither the liberal president the far left has been waiting for, nor one who is going to be in any position to threaten the 2nd amendment.

You'll keep your guns, as you should, but I suspect by the time you'll need to use them to defend the 2nd, you'll be too old to take them very far from your house - and I'll be long dead - assuming it ever happens.
>>
>>730422
>but this is neither the liberal president the far left has been waiting for
there is no far left that wants an end to 2nd amendment. Just as there is no far right that thinks we should do away with the amendment that forbids quartering soldiers in our home.
>>
>>730428
>there is no far left that wants an end to 2nd amendment. Just as there is no far right that thinks we should do away with the amendment that forbids quartering soldiers in our home.
Oh there's plenty - but few, if any, in power - and yes, in both cases, tiny minorities. Just, very, very loud minorities - cuz clickbait sells.
>>
>>730428
>Just as there is no far right that thinks we should do away with the amendment that forbids quartering soldiers in our home.
Go with something that exists. The far right thinks we have no need for privacy. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you so protective of your privacy?"
and passing the Patriot act went far in killing privacy in this country.
>>
>>730447
Obama administration didn't end the Patriot act, the Trump administration did. Betcha a Biden administration will reinstate it.
>>
>>730500
>the Trump administration did
Bullshit they didnt. You are a liar.
>>
>>730505
Patriot act expired on March 15 2020 and wasn't renewed
>>
>>729429

if they take away all of our ARs, how are we supposed to defend ourselves if the government wants to take over? i mean yeah sure they have fucking tanks and missiles but they'll btfo once 20 of us rednecks with our ARs get together and start hollerin'!! that's real American spirit right there!!! yes i realize a single tank could literally drive across us all without firing a single shot but i live in a fantasy land where reality doesn't matter
>>
>>730518
>once 20 of us rednecks with our ARs
There are 44 MILLION gun owners in America. Is the government going to have tanks on every street corner 24/7?
>>
>>730518
>but i live in a fantasy land where reality doesn't matter
Oh the irony. Tell me again how the US military btfo all those rednecks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>>
>>730518
>>729429
Rednecks want guns to murder their fellow citizens and local legislative bodies, not the military. There is almost a 0% chance that the U.S. military under our current democratic system would ever officially take sides in the "culture war" murder fantasies that conservatives circle jerk over on a daily basis. I guarantee you that all the dipshits buying up guns and ammo right now are more worried about ANTIFA marching out to bumfuck county to burn down their Applebee's than they are about governmental tyranny. The places they live are already sociopolitical landfills to begin with.
>>
>>730381
>clips are more common when people have camera phones
wow what a fucking shock? there is the video of him as VP telling people not to own ARs and instead buy a shotgun and negligent discharge it
>>
>>730380
>On the other hand, when some sports star, who (rightly or wrongly) really believes his people are being systematically exterminated and imprisoned, takes the knee - and instead of CTR, the right loudly admonishes him for being a disobedient race horse... Kinda just confirming their worst fears.
Because I dont want some fags who hit a ball lecturing me or shoving their politics down my throat.
>>
>>730560
>Because I dont want some fags who hit a ball lecturing me or shoving their politics down my throat.
Sure you do - you just want to make sure that its only fags who agree with you. Conservatives are tickle pink to platform conservative celebrities at literally every opportunity. The only time they bust out their "shut up and dribble" retorts is when the celebrity disagrees with them. Even so, imagine what a fucking snowflake you have to be to get genuinely upset about an American citizen whose profession is an athlete sharing their political opinion. Change the channel you fucking crybaby.
>>
>>730399
>He didn't write the bill, push the bill to the floor, or talk to anyone about it. He didn't do anything beyond the bare minimum to tow the party line.
He fucking wrote the fucking bill the amendment was attached to you retard. The AWB was an amendment to the crime bill. He wrote the fucking crime bill. He voted for it. Fuck he has been taking credit for it "In 1993, while chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Joe Biden was one of the lawmakers who worked to incorporate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban into the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.Credit..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/opinion/joe-biden-ban-assault-weapons.html
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1305229763464900608?lang=en
He was directly responsible for it.
> Reagan is FAR more responsible for that AWB than he is.
Reagan wasn't even fucking president. He stopped being president in 1989. Reagan was a cuck, but there is no way you can say Biden did less than Reagan.
>I'm not saying he doesn't want a AWB, mind you. I'm sure he sees it as the sane and practical thing to do for the same reasons Reagan did, and is of the same (IMO wrong) line thought that no one needs "military grade" weapons -
His line of thought is he wants to reopen FDR's concentration camps and doing this will help him
>- just as Justice Scalia was.
Scalia was not pro awb, you lying ape.
>>
>>730399
> It, however, is not something he's historically supported more than any other Democrat (and he has a LONG history of being in a position to do so), and further, isn't anything he can actually achieve as president. (And even if he could, it wouldn't be anything of the mass gun reclamation folks have been predicting - even if it still wouldn't be to my liking.)
The NUMBER 1 PRIORITY of the dems is ending private gun ownership. He fucking said he would have overturned heller and doesn't believe people have an individual right to own a gun.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/21/joe-biden-told-voters-the-second-amendment-does-not-protect-an-individual-right/
>Though I will give you his is among the least likely Democrats to tow the party line, so the fact that he's willing to here, is a bad sign. Nonetheless, he could be fucking Dianne Feinstein's twin with a dick, and still couldn't do dick as president - actually having more power in that department as a senior senator.
Unless the dems take the senate, in which case they end the filibuster and ban guns. Plus he has already suggested using an EO to have the ATF call ARs machine guns for being "too easily convertible" like how open bolt guns are banned.
>Granted, the far left harped on him for this exchange:
>"You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns," one man accused Biden.
>"You're full of sh**," Biden snapped back. "I did not—no, no, shush. Shush. I support the Second Amendment."
He does not support the second amendment. He fucking said he opposes heller. He does not believe individuals have a right to own guns, you lying chinese shill.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/21/joe-biden-told-voters-the-second-amendment-does-not-protect-an-individual-right/
>>
>>730399
>...and has previously accused him of not being a gun control supporter, in that, and other Huffington post articles. In addition to harping on his previously strong support for border control, welfare reform, and the like.
Don't care. dude is corrupt as the day is long and wants to ban guns. We must make his job hell at every turn
>He also voted against smart gun regulation,
his website says he supports smart gun regulation, fag.
>voted for the NRA backed Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA),
FOPA closed the registry on machine guns, effectively banning all new machine guns. That is why he voted for it
>(which created the "gun show loophole") claiming "measure that saved gun ownership as we know it.",
That was part of the GCA/Brady Bill, not the FOPA and he wants to end private sales.
>and he is a gun owner himself.
So is fucking Feinstein. They are still anti gun and they still want to put Americans into FDR's old concentration camps.
>>
>>730414
>and his previous voting history suggest he's as moderate on gun control as he is on everything else
No one who voted for the AWB is a moderate you fucking jackass
>>
>>730420
He literally said he doesn't believe owning a gun is an individual right. anti gunners like you are worse than child rapists
https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/21/joe-biden-told-voters-the-second-amendment-does-not-protect-an-individual-right/
>>
>>730422
>, nor one who is going to be in any position to threaten the 2nd amendment.
If the dems take the 2 runoffs in georgia, the dems already promised to end the filibuster and go after guns
>>
>>730428
Who are AOC and Eric Swalwell?
>>
>>730518
Tanks require fuel, depots, mechanics, and drivers. The US couldn't fucking win in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. What makes you think they would be able to win here?
>>
>>730570
>Change the channel you fucking crybaby.
I did you fucking tranny, and guess what? Sports ratings were so fucking shitty even the NBA is getting rid of the BLM shit because so many people boycotted them and the MLB. Hell, the only reason the NFL isn't fucked is because Brady is MAGA as fuck, if they didn't have a Brady the NFL would get boycott too.
Apehoop ratings were at like a 40 year low. Game 2 of the ALCS was the lowest rated on on record.
>>
>>730598
>I'll make shit up and blame other people for it
the right in a nutshell
>>
>>730615
https://www.newsweek.com/time-now-recommit-national-assault-weapon-ban-opinion-1536267
>>
>>730560
>Because I dont want some fags who hit a ball lecturing me or shoving their politics down my throat.
If you believed that your people were being systematically wiped out and imprisoned by the government you lived under, and you were one of the rare individuals of that group with a moment in the national spotlight - I really hope taking the knee would be the fucking least you would fucking do.

In that position, you shove it down their throats, and you shove it hard, lest you are not a person, but a slave - and if you can't see the truth of this, due to identity politics or because this guy is black, well, you're already a slave, and he's likely more a man than you can ever hope to be.
>>
>>730619
>If you believed that your people were being systematically wiped out and imprisoned by the government you lived under, and you were one of the rare individuals of that group with a moment in the national spotlight - I really hope taking the knee would be the fucking least you would fucking do.
Blacks aren't being systematically killed by cops. Blacks are also more likely to shoot at and kill cops. I stopped watching MLB because my team boycotted a game because a domestic abuser got shot trying to kidnap his ex's kids, after he wrestled with cops and tried to leave with a knife and 2 children.
>In that position, you shove it down their throats, and you shove it hard, lest you are not a person, but a slave - and if you can't see the truth of this, due to identity politics or because this guy is black, well, you're already a slave, and he's likely more a man than you can ever hope to be.
Dilate you no guns fag. Those players know they are being cunts. Lebron played Fifa while boycotting a game and when the players were told they would lost part of their salary for not playing the playoffs suddenly their tune changed real hard. Just like how they are getting rid of all the BLM shit for next season.
>>
>>730596
> the dems already promised to end the filibuster and go after guns
source: his ass
In what way? and what states?
>>
>>730618
>https://www.newsweek.com/time-now-recommit-national-assault-weapon-ban-opinion-1536267
some rando writes an opinion piece about his own legislation for CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE .... and this is evidence that the left are going to end the 2nd amendment on a national level?
eat shit. and I suppose if Florida legalizes meth, does that mean methheads will run rampant in Pennsylvania?
>>
>>730623
"Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court."
https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274
>>
>>730626
Swalwell ran for president and is a federal legislator you retard. He is the congressman from California's 15th district
>>
>>730630
again, one fucken person says a thing and wants to get back pats for it. But has the democratic party agreed they'll do this? Are they actually making action in that way? of course not because they're spinless cucks interested in slobbering on corporate dick, and you dont get corporate dick by changing anything.
anyone thinking a biden admin is anything other than a 4 year lame duck term, they're fooling themselves.

Nothing will get done. Dems will call that a victory, Republicans will call them lazy. nothing changes.

But go ahead. buy another dozen guns and claim yourself smart rather than just another sucker who gave his money away for no reason
>>
>>730580
>>730372
>Reagan wasn't even fucking president. [...] there is no way you can say Biden did less than Reagan.
Biden voted party line, as one would expect. Then, yes, then former president, if you followed the conversation, Saint Reagan Himself, campaigned publically, and personally pleaded directly to congressmen to get it the two votes it needed from across the aisle to pass. (>>730371)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/feb/05/barack-obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

Feinstein, pretty much the personification of the whole gun control movement, wrote the AWB amendment, not Biden. Biden's responsible for the bit the Black Lives Matter movement points to as a direct assault against them.

Though I suppose Reagan should be considered the personification of the gun control movement as well, as he's directly responsible for the gun laws you see in California - all to get guns away from the Black Panthers, who decided to open carry into the capitol building when he was the state's governor.

>Scalia was not pro awb, you lying ape.
Scalia specifically stated that the first amendment is "defunct as a defense against government tyranny" in his majority opinion, and basically incorporated the law in such a way in that the only variety of firearms a state can't take away, are those deemed exclusively for self defense. That's specifically why no one has managed to overturn any municipal ban on AR-15's since. Thus yes, Reagan, Scalia, and possibly Biden, all believe the 2nd does not mean the public has access to "military grade" firearms (whatever the fuck that may actually mean).

>>730557
>clips are more common when people have camera phones
Which is exactly why every fucking word any senator said was written down. Thus we have Biden, regarding the NRA backed FOPA bill that he pushed to give us that lovely "gun show loophole", saying, "It's the measure that saved gun ownership as we know it."
>>
>>730632
I haven't bought a gun since february. Markey isn't the only anti filibuster fag you shill. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-democrats-considering-ending-the-filibuster/
Hell places live VOX, current year man, and Yang are all pushing to end the filibuster too. This isn't one person. This is an effort by the DNC and the media to push it. It just might have quieted down because the GOP likely taxes the senate, but stop lying and saying the dems have no interest in being anti gun.
>>
>>730621
>Blacks are also more likely to shoot at and kill cops
Yes, literally all pointed out in the post that reply was in response to, congratulations on rehash. ...and when it comes to guns, I'm well to the fucking right of Scalia.
>>
>>730637
>Which is exactly why every fucking word any senator said was written down. Thus we have Biden, regarding the NRA backed FOPA bill that he pushed to give us that lovely "gun show loophole", saying, "It's the measure that saved gun ownership as we know it."
You fucking communist shill. I already explained to you that the private sales thing is part of the GCA not the FOPA. The FOPA does 3 things. It bans new full autos (which is why Biden supported it). It protects gun owners who are transporting guns through multiple states (which democrat states like NY ignore) and it prohibits the feds from making a registry (which they still do anyway and multiple states like NJ and Mass do).
Stop fucking lying shill.
>>
>>730641
Maybe you should read a bit more on FOPA from the NRA:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110125/no-surrender
>Looking back, it seems like an impossible victory.
>>
>>730637
>Biden voted party line, as one would expect.
On a bill he authored.
>Then, yes, then former president, if you followed the conversation, Saint Reagan Himself, campaigned publically, and personally pleaded directly to congressmen to get it the two votes it needed from across the aisle to pass.
Reagan was a cuck, I hate him. but he wasn't the one voting on the bill. Biden was.
>Feinstein, pretty much the personification of the whole gun control movement, wrote the AWB amendment, not Biden. Biden's responsible for the bit the Black Lives Matter movement points to as a direct assault against them.
The AWB was an amendment to the crimes bill. Biden wrote the crimes bill and now takes credit for the AWB being part of it.
>Though I suppose Reagan should be considered the personification of the gun control movement as well, as he's directly responsible for the gun laws you see in California - all to get guns away from the Black Panthers, who decided to open carry into the capitol building when he was the state's governor.
Yea I hate that cunt too, but he is dead. Whereas dems present a clear and present danger.
>Scalia specifically stated that the first amendment is "defunct as a defense against government tyranny" in his majority opinion,
CITATION NEEDED
>, and basically incorporated the law in such a way in that the only variety of firearms a state can't take away, are those deemed exclusively for self defense.
ARs are used for self defense all the time.
>That's specifically why no one has managed to overturn any municipal ban on AR-15's since.
No, the reason no one could overturn it was because Obama appointees were taking the cases. Thomas and Alito have wrote decisions about how they are mad as fuck at the lower courts disregarding heller. Now stop lying you tranny.
>Thus yes, Reagan, Scalia, and possibly Biden, . 2nd does not mean the public has access to "military grade" firearms (whatever the fuck that may actually mean).
Scalia did not ever say that
>>
>>730640
I highly fucking doubt that you anti gun piece of shit
>>
>>730643
The hughes amendment is part of the FOPA. That is literally why Biden voted for it, because the Hughes amendment bans new machine guns. They even say in your source that the "in the business of selling firearms" clause is part of the GCA of 1968, not the FOPA. The GCA is why you can do private sales without an FFL. The whole private sales not needing a background check is party of the brady bill, not the FOPA. In 1986 there were no background checks and no NICS. The brady bill made the NICS and only applied it to FFLs. Guess who voted for the brady bill? Joe Biden
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00394
So Biden voted to ban new machine guns, ban "assault weapons", require NICS checks, and as VP supported no fly no buy
>>
>>730646
I believe Jefferson's stated intent, that the states should be fully capable of ousting the federal government at will, by force, thus the people should be able to arm themselves heavily enough easily take down the federal military. Scalia, apparently, does not. Though I also believe in the original intent that the US federal government isn't allowed to control a large standing army in peace time, and I'm clearly just paleolithic in that respect.

Granted, there is the old argument that you only need to be able to take out the head of the snake that's strangling you, but alas, we didn't even get a defense of that, even if there's been little effort to go after the optimal tool for it.
>>
>>730645
>Scalia
The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, the Heller opinion cited “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”

Look up the quote in the echo chamber of your choosing.
>>
>>730649
>Scalia, apparently, does not.
Holy shit it wasn't fucking Scalia agreeing with gun control in heller. If anything he was placating Roberts and Kennedy. Stop being dishonest.
>>
>>730652
>>730652
>>730650
That's a direct quote from Scalia's majority opinion, the thing every court has cited, to sustain the AR-15 bans.
>>
>>730653
>>730650
You cut the fucking quote in half to take it out of context you anti gun fag.
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"
He is basically saying he isn't overturning Miller because Miller is precedent and he doesn't want to overturn precedent. Like how he later mentions other gun laws are not in the scope of the ruling .
>>
>>730653
>>730650
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
again he is talking about miller being precedent.
>>
>>730653
>>730650
You are twisting 2 quotes out of context about how he is bound by the precedent of Miller. And once again, both Thomas and Alito have said lower courts who uphold AR/AWBs are misinterpreting Heller.
>>
>>730658
Not sure how what you've put forth changes the interpretation the courts have been going with, and it only reinforces the precedent that the states can ban various guns.

Now, one could argue that the ruling says guns in "common" circulation can't be banned, and that would kill these AR-15 bills, but at the same time, he's basically saying the function that can't be violated is the one for self-defense - and while the AR-15 can certainly be used for self-defense, it isn't generally required for it (or even the best option, arguably being an offensive weapon). He's basically saying, since small arms are no match for the modern military, defense against tyranny is defunct, but right to self-defense cannot be violated.

https://admin.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/how_scalia_botched_heller_and_let_the_left_undermine_the_2nd_amendment.html

Further, Scalia has repeatedly reinforced this idea that heavy weapons are not covered by the amendment in various interviews:
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-bear-arms-not-unlimited-noted-future-limitations-decided-future-cases-article-1.1124408

>"Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed."
>""I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.'"

Granted, he also, mockingly, said hand-held rocket launchers would "have to be decided", so he dips into my camp from time to time, but he's basically left the 2nd in such a condition that the states can ban nearly anything, save that soft condition of that used for "self defense", arguably expanded to "in common use".

It's certainly not the access to arms that would be required to allow forcible removal a tyrannical government in a direct military confrontation - though, sadly, the 2nd hasn't been interpreted that way for a long, long time.
>>
>>731002
>It's certainly not the access to arms that would be required to allow forcible removal a tyrannical government in a direct military confrontation
Probably enough to allow forcible removal of a tyrannical state government, however, provided the federal government doesn't intervene... Which Trump has demonstrated willingness to do, as I'm sure would Biden - though it's likely only Trump has the balls to do so, when the state in jeopardy requests he does not interfere.
>>
>>731002
>and that would kill these AR-15 bills, but at the same time, he's basically saying the function that can't be violated is the one for self-defense - and while the AR-15 can certainly be used for self-defense, it isn't generally required for it (or even the best option, arguably being an offensive weapon).
AR-15 is an extremely common defensive weapon you no guns yuro retard faggot. There is no such thing as an "offensive" gun compared to a defensive one. ARs have been shown time and time again to be good at protecting people from things like home invasions or when BLM tried to lynch that kid in wisconsin.
>He's basically saying, since small arms are no match for the modern military, defense against tyranny is defunct, but right to self-defense cannot be violated.
Not what he is fucking saying either. He is saying that Miller held that only weapons used for the militia/to fight tyranny were protected by the 2nd amendment and since short barreled shotguns aren't used by any militia or to fight tyranny they are not protected. Seriously stop lying.
>"Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed."
>""I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.'"
He was gay as shit for saying that, but that is more to do with following the miller decision than anything else. Miller decision regulated destructive devices and machine guns which would be the 2 things that he is referring to as heavy weapons.
>Granted, he also, mockingly, said hand-held rocket launchers would "have to be decided", so he dips into my camp from time to time, but he's basically left the 2nd in such a condition that the states can ban nearly anything, save that soft condition of that used for "self defense", arguably expanded to "in common use".
Because that wasn't the scope of the case. The question was, do Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms in their home and can DC ban handguns.
>>
>>731002
>It's certainly not the access to arms that would be required to allow forcible removal a tyrannical government in a direct military confrontation - though, sadly, the 2nd hasn't been interpreted that way for a long, long time.
Once again, the miller decision and the heller decision state arms used for militia use are explicitly protected. The issue is that miller is retarded and upheld the NFA in a kangaroo court. And if Heller and McDonald did nothing, why are chealsea clinton, Joe Biden, and Michael Bloomberg so fucking against it?
>>
>>731039
>>731048
Even after reading over the decision a dozen more times, I really think you're conflating what you wish he said, and what we think the 2nd amendment means, with the actual decision. Scalia's interpretation of the amendment was much narrower than the Jeffersonian one, and he wasn't really "our guy" in that regard, much as the conservative American Thinker article suggests. Either way, the end effect was to more or less leave the legality of anything more lethal than a handgun, up to the states and munciplalities.

On the other hand, given the current makeup of the courts, any case brought above state level will pretty much be guaranteed to only widen the scope of the 2nd amendment. The Democrats are pretty good at shooting themselves in the foot, so they may very well pass a law in some state that demands it. While we can't count on Biden to be the one to do it, as he was among the senior voices in the party warning the Democrats not to shoot themselves in the foot by impeaching Trump, while knowing full well removal was impossible, there's Harris, and several other young idealists more left than her, that may yet be foolish enough to do so.
>>
>>731674
The issue was that he made the decision without overturning or conflicting Miller, likely because either Roberts and/or Kennedy was being a cuck about it. The quotes are literally him tip toeing around Miller existing and the NFA being found constitutional and the scope of the case was pretty narrow in the idea of if the 2nd amendment referred to an individual right and if cities had the right to outright ban a class of firearm from being owned in the home. It is a big enough deal that dems are constantly pissed off about it.
>>
>>731037
>ARs have been shown time and time again to be good at protecting people from things like home invasions or when BLM tried to lynch that kid in wisconsin.
more often the dumbass just puts 20 bullet holes in the side of their home. maybe even into their neighbors' home.
>>
>>733997
>more often the dumbass just puts 20 bullet holes in the side of their home. maybe even into their neighbors' home.
CITATION NEEDED
if you use the correct ammo ARs actually penetrate walls LESS than 9mm or 12 gauge
>>
>>730312
Those plastic inserts with the the barbs that shred people's dicks?
>>
>>731037
>ARs have been shown time and time again to be good at protecting people from things like home invasions
I just want to say that an AR is hilarious overkill for home defense. Unless you live in a giant mansion with hundred meter long hallways, any handgun with a decent magazine capacity will do the job just as well, perhaps even better given the benefits of a compact frame in close quarters situations. It all comes down to the fact your likely opponents will be poorly armed thieves and the odd serial killer, neither of which will have the will or equipment to get into a gunfight with you. Just having a gun gives you a massive upper hand in these situations, and your tactics matter more than your firepower (get the drop on them and don't let them get close enough to stab you or try to steal your gun).

The calculus changes if you piss off the local cult or some other group that has actual firepower and body armor, in which case an AR-15 might not be enough, in fact you probably also want some friends who bring their own AR-15s. You might also want to set up a watch rotation and clear sight lines around your home to spot the cult attack.
>>
>>734014
>the correct ammo
You mean cop killer bullets?
>>
>>729441
Yes, because people just buy more guns. That's the point. Noncompliance to any gun laws.
>>
>>734201
An AR-15 is a light, ergonomic rifle that can accurately put multiple intermediate power projectiles on target in quick succession in a manor where the user has to explicitly fire each projectile.
Sounds like a pretty good self defense firearm to me, and not at all overkill in a home defense situation, it's not like it's a machine gun or a grenade.
>>
>>734233
>An AR-15 is a light, ergonomic rifle that can accurately put multiple intermediate power projectiles on target in quick succession in a manor where the user has to explicitly fire each projectile.
You get the exact same thing out of a pistol with an even lighter, smaller frame at the ranges we're talking. You can also conceal carry a pistol outside your home, giving you discreet protection just about everywhere you go. Pistols are also generally more economic than a rifle, and depending on the caliber will also have cheap ammunition that won't get squeezed as hard by potential wartime demands (the height of the Iraq/Afghan wars saw a significant drop in the availability of 5.56mm).

I mean you should use what you have in an emergency, but if you're buying a weapon explicitly for defeating intruders in your home a pistol is a better investment. On the other hand, if you just want to be tacticool an AR-15 and related platforms are fun, but don't trick yourself into believing you picked the most efficient home defense weapon in a majority of realistic cases. Get a pistol for defense, get a rifle for fun.
>>
News Flash: American love guns!

Also, water and air!

This breaking news is brought to you by obvious news!
>>
>>729447
> factcheck.org

lol

> break up with bitchy girlfriend
> she calls in a “red flag” on you
> you’re human rights are stripped away
> Not a real gun grab
>>
>>734372
It's easier to aim a rifle than a handgun, especially for those with shaky hands.
>>
>>734385
>this strawman argument again
>>
>>734201
>I just want to say that an AR is hilarious overkill for home defense. Unless you live in a giant mansion with hundred meter long hallways,
Hey no guns
>any handgun with a decent magazine capacity will do the job just as well, perhaps even better given the benefits of a compact frame in close quarters situations.
An AR is easier to shoot due to the stock and when your arms are extended the difference in barrel length of an AR and a handgun is negligible.
>It all comes down to the fact your likely opponents will be poorly armed thieves and the odd serial killer, neither of which will have the will or equipment to get into a gunfight with you. Just having a gun gives you a massive upper hand in these situations, and your tactics matter more than your firepower (get the drop on them and don't let them get close enough to stab you or try to steal your gun).
An AR is a lot easier to shoot. There are news reports of a pregnant woman shooting 3 would be intruders who were in her home
>>
>>734220
>You mean cop killer bullets?
define this
And I mean frangible rounds.
https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/winchester-usa-556-frangible-rifle-ammunition
>>
>>734372
>You get the exact same thing out of a pistol with an even lighter, smaller frame at the ranges we're talking.
A carbine is significantly easier to aim and shoot than a handgun.
>You can also conceal carry a pistol outside your home, giving you discreet protection just about everywhere you go.
not every state allows CCW and you can own more than one gun. And a CCW handgun wouldn't be the first choice for HD for most people when a full sized handgun would be more comfortable, easy to shoot, and have a bigger mag.
>Pistols are also generally more economic than a rifle
nogunz detected
>and depending on the caliber will also have cheap ammunition that won't get squeezed as hard by potential wartime demands (the height of the Iraq/Afghan wars saw a significant drop in the availability of 5.56mm).
and 9mm doesn't get affected by wartime demands?
> but if you're buying a weapon explicitly for defeating intruders in your home a pistol is a better investment.
handguns are harder to get than ARs in most states as a lot of states have handgun permitting processes and require people to be 21+. Handguns are also more likely to be stolen and used in crimes
> On the other hand, if you just want to be tacticool an AR-15 and related platforms are fun, but don't trick yourself into believing you picked the most efficient home defense weapon in a majority of realistic cases. Get a pistol for defense, get a rifle for fun.
an AR is significantly better for HD. Try shooting a rifle and a handgun once in your life, no gunz.
>>
>>734466
>An AR is easier to shoot due to the stock and when your arms are extended the difference in barrel length of an AR and a handgun is negligible.
That's not at all true. It is not negligible. Barrel length is just as much a component in ballistics as the caliber and grain of a round. arget acquisition is also entirely different depending on barrel length and platform. Additionally, barrel length is not negligible when trying to maneuver indoors. It takes a lot of training to effectively maneuver indoors with a 16-18" barrel and even then the risk of getting your muzzle tripped up on door jambs, furniture or other household items is pretty large, depending on the size of your house.

>An AR is a lot easier to shoot.
This is also untrue. An AR is arguably harder to shoot than your standard handgun or shotgun overall as far as your average gun owner is concerned. There are a lot more moving parts therefore much more can go wrong. ARs are far more prone to misfires and jams, require more maintenance, and the space required to effectively operate one is not conducive to indoor engagements. I've got no problem with the 556 or 223 platform - I think AR pistols are fucking boss, but I would never recommend an AR for home defense in a standard size dwelling. High capacity handgun, AR pistol or shotgun is much more effective.

>>734385
You really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about do you.
>>
>>734479
>That's not at all true. It is not negligible. Barrel length is just as much a component in ballistics as the caliber and grain of a round. arget acquisition is also entirely different depending on barrel length and platform. Additionally, barrel length is not negligible when trying to maneuver indoors. It takes a lot of training to effectively maneuver indoors with a 16-18" barrel and even then the risk of getting your muzzle tripped up on door jambs, furniture or other household items is pretty large, depending on the size of your house.
Do you own a gun? A 16 Ar is pretty short. Most people hold handguns with extended arms whereas you pull a rifle stock into your shoulder. And a rifle will be a lot easier to shoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_APnhoIYeD0
>This is also untrue. An AR is arguably harder to shoot than your standard handgun or shotgun overall as far as your average gun owner is concerned.
You have never shot a gun in your life have you? Shotguns have a lot of recoil and a handgun is a lot harder to pick up the sights and keep your hands steady
>There are a lot more moving parts therefore much more can go wrong. ARs are far more prone to misfires and jams, require more maintenance, and the space required to effectively operate one is not conducive to indoor engagements.
ARs are literally designed to not malfunction. If they did the US government would never have adopted the M16 and cops would not be using ARs. ARs are simpler to operate than a shotgun because you can't short stroke an AR and they recoil a lot lighter. The idea that ARs are jamomatics is from the 1960s. Modern ARs (hell ARs from the 1970s) are extremely reliable.
> I've got no problem with the 556 or 223 platform -...recommend an AR for home defense in a standard size dwelling. High capacity handgun, AR pistol or shotgun is much more effective.
An AR carbine is fine and would be much easier to shoot than a pistol or shotgun, no gunz
>>
>>734488
>Do you own a gun?
I own a lot more than you, bruv. I work as armed security.

>Most people hold handguns with extended arms whereas you pull a rifle stock into your shoulder. And a rifle will be a lot easier to shoot.
You clearly have never trained with weapons before. The speed in which you can maneuver whatever environment you are in and bring your weapon up to firing position effectively is just as if not more important than how physically comfortable the gun is to shoot. I can tell you know nothing about guns because you say an AR is "easier" to shoot with zero nuance. Every weapon has its pros and cons depending on the situation in which you're using it.

>Shotguns have a lot of recoil and a handgun is a lot harder to pick up the sights and keep your hands steady
Different scenarios require different weapons. A shotgun is infinitely more effective in a small, enclosed space like a living room or bedroom than a full on 16-18' AR. If you had ever stepped foot into a firearm training course I'm sure you would know this.

>ARs are literally designed to not malfunction.
You're a fucking moron. Every weapon is designed "not to malfunction" but they do. All the time. I've taken a 6 hour course on nothing but dealing with malfunctions in a live fire situation. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>An AR carbine is fine and would be much easier to shoot than a pistol or shotgun
The next time you're standing in your bedroom or any other small room in your house I'd like for you turn off the light and see how quickly you can pick up an AR, chamber it, acquire a target then quickly reposition then reacquire another target. After you've done that I'd like for you to see how well you can do the same thing with a gun half the size - like a short barrel shotgun or revolver. Once you've done this come back so you can tongue my asshole for how right I was and how wrong you were.
>>
>>734499
>I...ty.
My dad works at nintendo you britbong reddit spacer
>You c...t.
an AR is easier to get up to firing position because it has a stock so you can get to the sights easier and there are a lot more mounting options for red dots on ARs than there are optics ready handguns, and an AR is easier to find the dot on because once again, you have a stock to rotate up.
>D...is.
You type like a reddit faggot. The minimum legal length for a shotgun is 18 inches. Shotguns are longer than AR carbines. They also recoil a lot more and many of them require pumping, which you can short stroke. m193 (to say nothing of soft and hollow points) is devastating out of a 16 inch barrel under 100 m. See Kenosha and how that bicep literally got blown off.
>You're a fucking moron. Every weapon is designed "not to malfunction" but they do. All the time. I've taken a 6 hour course on nothing but dealing with malfunctions in a live fire situation. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Clean your fucking AR if it is malfunctioning that much you reddit spacing bunker chan tranny larper.
>The next time you're standing in your bedroom or any other small room in your house I'd like for you turn off the light and see how quickly you can pick up an AR, chamber it, acquire a target then quickly reposition then reacquire another target.
pretty fucking easy because it has an optic on.
>After you've done that I'd like for you to see how well you can do the same thing with a gun half the size - like a short barrel shotgun
You do know those are regulated by the NFA right? Minimum shotgun barrel is 18 inches, 2 inches longer than a rifle
> or revolver.
Why would you use something not optics ready like a revolver in current year?
>Once you've done this come back so you can tongue my asshole for how right I was and how wrong you were.
I'm not getting aids from you, you no guns, yuro tranny.





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.