[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 88 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]


File: 1610141974474.jpg (329 KB, 1080x857)
329 KB
329 KB JPG
https://www.guns.com/news/2021/01/07/and-here-come-the-anti-gun-bills-for-2021
This is a /k/ thread about a news article about how democrats are pre filing laws to deny Americans their basic human rights. This thread is not allowed on /k/ so it is here. The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.
>>
>Don't let the momentary interruption fool you, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been able to submit a flurry of nationwide gun control proposals to be considered by the Democrat-controlled legislature.

>The 117th U.S. Congress gaveled into session this week and at least a half-dozen anti-gun measures have been filed already with the House Judiciary Committee. The majority of those, four bills, were submitted by Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee, D-Texas, with the fifth and sixth filed by Reps. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., and Al Green, D-Texas, respectively.

>Related: Republican Lawmakers Reboot Hearing Protection Act, Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

>While the proposed texts and summaries for these legislative measures are not yet available to the public, the titles seem largely self-explanatory and likely mimic bills previously submitted by the same lawmakers in past sessions.

>The proposals:

>H.R.30 - To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.

>H.R.121 - To provide for the hiring of 200 additional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents and investigators to enforce gun laws.

>H.R.125 - To amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide for a 7-day waiting period before a semiautomatic firearm, a silencer, armor piercing ammunition, or a large capacity ammunition magazine may be transferred.

>H.R.127 - To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

>H.R.130 - To require the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, and to require the investigation of reports of improper storage of firearms or ammunition.

>H.R.167 - To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer.

>Meanwhile, additional and more sweeping bills are likely inbound.
>>
>Congressman David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat, has for the past two sessions entered his ambitious bid to reboot and expand the long-expired federal ban on “assault weapons” within the first few weeks of being sworn in.

>His latest attempt, which expired in December without leaving committee, had 216 co-sponsors in a chamber where only 218 votes are needed to pass legislation. This was likely due to the fact that it faced certain demise in a then-Republican controlled Senate or on President's Trump desk. Last October, as he was seeking reelection, Cicilline ran on a promise to continue his gun control efforts if sent back to Congress to represent Little Rhody.

>The current party breakdown of the House has Dems with a razor-thin 222-211 margin over Republicans. In the Senate, with the outcome of special run-off elections in Georgia decided this week, Dems will hold sway over a split 50-50 chamber. Vice President Kamala Harris will have the tie-breaking vote, and Sen. Chuck Schumer will be the expected Senate Majority Leader.
>>
>>764005

Awesome job the GOP has done for the past 4 years, being such dipshits they lost the House, Senate, and Executive in one fell swoop. That fucking wall looks pretty great now, doesn't it? I hope purging the moderates and embracing the far right and their jingoistic fantasies was worth chasing America into the arms of the DNC in an attempt to find someone, anyone behaving rationally. Congratulations, retards, you've sold us out for your fantasies of revolution, and now we'll have 2 years of Dems running free.
>>
>>764005
Can't wait.
>>
>>764020
>All this and the wall still didn't go anywhere

Perfect end to all this.
>>
>>764021
Fuck off, Chang
>>
I honestly thought this schizo killed himself after the Georgia runoff
>>
>>764020
The GOP destroyed in state legislatures and did pretty well in the house and will now have the house advantage for the next decade due to redistricting. And the GOP would have held the senate and the presidency if the dems didn't cheat. Still with only 50 senators the dems will need to murder Feinstein and Manchin and likely Sinema (and maybe a few more) to end the filibuster and do all this shit. And that is hoping red and purple district dems can be kept in line with the house being so close
>>
>>764005
S-shall not be infringed..?
>>
>>764037
Better not be. Those lawmakers just had the fear of the people put into them
>>
>>764036
Your tears sustain me
>>
>>764039
Shh. No tears. Only dreams
https://i.insider.com/5ff62624d184b30018aad625?width=1600&format=jpeg&auto=webp
>>
>>764042
Another terrorist guilty by association for killing a cop
>>
>>764026

The most egregious thing is this all started picking up speed when Obama was elected. Trump was just the opportunist who read the mood and rode it harder than anyone else. The GOP had a chance to reflect on what they had been doing wrong, to examine the shift in America, to focus on what mattered to most Americans. But instead they started pushing out the center-right and going harder on the culture wars pissing contest. They set the stage for someone like Trump and are reaping the rewards as their party threatens to split over Trump while the Dems have a free hand and the moral high ground. All because they doubled down on the culture wars and played with fire by relying on delusional boomers instead of reason.
>>
>>764044
So like every BLM member?
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/92/79274546-0c3e-5e7f-af6a-280c2f62345b/5ed78ee37db71.image.jpg?resize=500%2C652
>>
>>764005
If people who liked gun didn't hate democracy this wouldn't be an issue.
>>
>>764047
Dems started the culture war shit with things like the daily show when bush was president. Oongo called Americans "bitter clingers" and went on TV to say Zimzam and officer wilson were guilty and told banks not to do business with guns and ammo and porn makers.
The GOP didn't take the house and senate under bongo in a vacuum. Trump wasn't elected in a vacuum.
>>764051
the majority does not have the right to deny the minority their basic human rights
>>
>>764047
>Republicans should've continued being/become a minority center-right European watertreading party exclusively with no hope of halting the dramatic demographic changes in the United States, and all American politics should've been reduced to arguments over interminable foreign wars and tax cuts

how insufferably boring

>>764051
>
>>
>>764052

If the GOP spent more time championing rights instead if trying to deny them to minorities we wouldn't be in this position. That I might lose my 2A rights because a bunch of Jesusfreaks can't stop hating gays is infuriating.
>>
>>764048
Correct.
>>
>>764020
The GOP destroyed itself by proving to be full of the old neocons that were around from Bush/Obama. They haven't gone far right, they merely entertained the magaboomer types of people for votes just like how Joe Biden suckered leftists into thinking he'd entertain a single policy of theirs. Problem was the Republicans scamming their more radical elements fell apart before the Democrats scamming theirs will but I predict they'll be in trouble too soon.
>>
>>764060

What rights? Demanding men use the women’s bathroom?
>>
>>764060
hello /r/liberalgunowners concern trolling

t. guy who concern trolls reddit in the opposite direction

>>764063
this is accurate

now the party is completely split, lmao
>>
>>764060
What are you talking about? The GOP is the only pro rights party
>>
>>764064
Correct, another completely pointless nothinburger issue the GOP championed because they knew their hate filled bigot voters would go for it, slowly losing any moderate conservative remaining that still had a conscience.
>>
>>764067
Libertarians would like to have a word with you
>>
>>764070
>Libertarian Party
Oh yes, the open borders no corporate regulations neoliberals masquerading as libertarians that only get a tiny proportion of votes because some pot smoking liberals want some edgier form of liberalism.
>>
>>764069

Yeah, my hateful daughter really enjoyed being told to shower next to a chick with a dick, LOL. Retarded argument.
>>
>>764073
These posts are why Trump lost the lib vote and the election
>>
>>764074
These posts are why moderate conservatives flipped to dems.
>>
>>764070
https://twitter.com/LPNational

The Libertarian party is a (poor) joke.
>>
>>764075
Trump lost the liberal vote because he lost the culture war and let himself get boxed into a corner on twitter. He fell apart and while he didn't fuck up the Covid handling dramatically any failings or issues with the United States handling it from state level to federal was thrown at him and he wasn't able to control the narrative.
>>
>>764005
>The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.
Lol no
>>
>>764079
Okay, let me take your human rights then.
>>
>>764079
We know its not in China amongst many other rights Chang.
>>
>>764076
Average people are skeptical at best of trannies. Moderates flipped because Trump is a fucking retard who hasn't seemed like a real president once since taking office.
>>
>>764080
>>764082
>when my opinion is challenged I threaten violence and sling racial slurrs
This is why Trump lost the college educated vote in 2020
>>
>>764088
Butthurt posts like this are why no one takes you seriously :)
>>
>>764088
>when you threaten to take my basic human rights I merely deflect and declare that human rights, in fact, aren't worth defending

Didn't Mr. Marx say something about the proletariat never surrendering arms or are you more of a Tankie?
>>
>>764088
The right to bear arms is not an opinion, its a right.
>>
>>764088
>when my opinion is challenged I threaten violence
Welcome to Earth, enjoy your stay. I recommend you stay unarmed so that your (wealthy) betters are the only ones whose implicit threat of violence when they don't get what they want carries weight.
>>
>>764089
>ad hominem
>>764090
>no true scotsman
>>
>>764070
They are just chinese plants to steal GOP voters. That is why they run anti gunner Bill Weld and JoJo "we need to give blacks reparations" jorginson
>>
>>764095
>all logical fallacies are fallacious
>>
>>764079
You must be a human to post here, slave.
>>
>>764095
>No argument
>>
>>764092
And it's a right I agree with. But it's not a human right, it is subject to debate and amending
>>
>>764097
These posts are why the population voted for Joe Biden
>>
>>764099
>>764101
Concession accepted
>>
>>764102
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its settled already my friend.
>>
>>764102
Rights don't exist, only power. If you don't know what people mean when they say something is a human right, you need to read a book.
>>
>>764102
>And it's a right I agree with. But it's not a human right, it is subject to debate and amending

Okay - I'm going to ban speech.
>>
>>764106
is subject to debate and amending.
>>
>>764110
The only debate and amending is to undo the unconstitutional infringements upon it.
>>
>>764109
Okay
>>
>>764110
also, little tired of non-Christian faiths - gonna ban those too while we're at it

it's okay: you can still be Christian, no reason you can't exercise free religion with those alternatives
>>
>>764005
So, we'll finally start implementing the "well regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment and in the process start saving lives? Oh no, that's almost as scary as wearing a mask to prevent the spread of a deadly virus thereby saving lives.

The fact that the NRA, consisting of only @ 5 million members and primarily funded by the firearms manufacturers and retailers, can hold 325 million Americans hostage by buying off politicians to allow unrestricted gun ownership of 1 - infinity firearms and ammo including assault weapons by anyone, anywhere, w/o any firearms safety training who can scrape together the money.

I'm all for people who are mentally fit, non-felons and passing rigorous firearms safety courses owning 1 high powered HUNTING rifle, 1 smaller caliber hunting rifle, a 12, 20 and .410 gauge shotgun and 1 handgun. Anything more than that, including assault rifles is just ridiculous compensation for a small member.

Canada has just as many people per capita who own firearms, yet they have a tiny fraction of the firearm deaths of the US.

>inb4 but muh blacks!
>>
>>764114
Heller
>>
>>764114
You realize states like New Hampshire have very lax gun laws and very low gun deaths right? New York City is more dangerous than New Hampshire and you can barely even own anything in New York City. Federal gun laws are moronic and don't address the problem which is crime.
>>
>>764114
Your throat is going to be well regulated by my cock soon enough.
>>
>>764111
To what lengths? You want the general public to be able to buy and fly an F-16?
>>
>>764005
>human rights
lol gun nuts are idiots. Words have meanings you fucking idiots. You can't just make up stuff. Gun is not a human right. Fucking mongs I swear.
>>
>>764113
Be my guest
>>
>>764120
An F16 costs 12 to 35 million USD. People that can afford that already either own military planes they bought from 3rd world countries or have private high speed jet planes. I don't get your point.
>>
>>764118
These posts lost Trump the 2020 election
>>
>>764120
You already legally can if someone has one to sell to you and you can find someone to train you for an FAA type rating.
>>
>>764120
there are literally multiple privately owned MiG-29s in the US, yes, and a handful of Su-27s in the hands of private aggressor training companies.
>>
>>764080
Oppress me harder Daddy
>>
>>764121
Define "Human Right."
>>
>>764124
Please answer my question. To what lengths do you want to extend these rights. Don't just say "psshhh why would anyone want a tank that's absurd!" because your neighbor is going to call you call commie for not letting him buy a tank and screech SHALL NOT BE... over and over and over and say owning tanks and F-16s is a basic human right.
>>
>>764133
>extend

There's that word again, retard
>>
>>764133
You already can own tanks and F16s, I'm talking about removing infringement upon common affordable small arms which criminals ignore anyways.
>>
>>764126
>find someone to train you for an FAA type rating.
Shall not be infringed
>>
>>764133
Restrict CBRN weaponry, everything else is free game. The founding fathers clearly intended it to be so, the fucking colonial navy was composed of privately owned and armed warships.
>>
>>764135
>you can already own tanks and F16s
Since you don't have an issue with having a federal license or heavy restrictions on your use to own those, you agree that having stipulations isn't infringement.
>>
>>764127
Ok, and these are obviously equipped with missiles and ammunition, correct? Or did they infringe our human rights?
>>
>>764120
>You want the general public to be able to buy and fly an F-16?
Yes. What's wrong with it?
>>
>>764138
A tank isn't a weapon, it is a vehicle. A plane isn't a weapon either. A smallarm like a modern sporting rifle that takes 30 round magazines is a direct continuation of arms that the Founding Fathers were referencing. Because the Founding Fathers mentioned arms specifically I am concerned about that.
>>
>>764138
Check and mate
>>
Unless there's another Senate raid that leads to all their heads on a pike we are all fucked.
>>
>>764134
Adults are speaking.
>>
>>764138
There's no federal restriction on owning the tank, actually - only on the cannon and any machine guns.
That's an infringement.

>>764139
You can literally purchase cannon ammunition right now assuming you wanted to sit through an arbitrary and extended licensing process (or just handload it yourself, which is much easier) - assembling a working autocannon isn't that hard, guy on /k/ did it himself and many SOTs make Vulcans for sale to commercial ranges.

If you have the skills to assemble a Maverick from whatever you can find on the surplus market then, by god, you have the right to own it without sitting through SOT applications.

>>764145
Reddit.
>>
>>764138
>aircraft
>named as a right under the US constitution

not an argument
>>
>>764147
>cannon
I need defense from the current federal government, not George Washington
>>
>>764142
>a tank isn't a weapon
>a plane isn't a weapon either
Lol. The same principle applies to owning nuclear bombs, but all I'm seeing is double-think.
>muh Founding Fathers
Then no weapons developed after the 18th century since that's what the Founding Fathers intended. If your reasoning for the law to be interpreted in its current form is tradition for tradition's sake, don't be surprised when people shit on your policy as nonsensical in its own framework.
>>
>>764153
So you're in favor of getting rid of the internet and all forms of communication beyond the printing press? This argument is insane to go with as then only white land owning men can vote and blacks only get 3/5s representation.
>>
>>764150
>he doesn't know the definition of cannon

retard

absolute

retard

>>764153
No communication methods invented post 179X as the founding fathers intended.

Also, again, legally the tank and the plane are not a weapon. A nuclear bomb is *explicitly* a weapon. You have zero argument.
>>
>>764147
>there's no federal restriction on owning the tank
>just that you can't have the things that make a tank a tank
>also their ownership is heavily restricted by local law and requires a license to clear it of its previous military grade
You're making a good point for national registries and mag size restrictions, anon.
>>
>>764158
Why would you want those things? Mag size restrictions dont slow down a good shooter and criminals will have the standard capacity magazines anyways. A registry also does not account for criminal guns and privately made guns. These restrictions serve no positive purpose and only antagonize law abiding citizens.
>>
>>764005
Shall not infrin-
>>
>>764156
>>764158
Weird how basing the entire basis of my argument on the Founding Fathers makes me look like a drooling retard.
>>
>>764156
Strange how things are re evaluated and amended as circumstances change
>>
the second amendment should be repealed
gun ownership should be for sport or hunting only and need significantly more stringent requirements to both acquire and retain a firearm
>>
>>764165
Oh so what restrictions on the first do you want then? The 2nd has been restricted but why is the 1st perfect? Why even restrict the 2nd if it doesn't help at all?
>>
>>764158
Your first point is correct, yes, assuming you can find someone to sell you one - considering the capital required to cast/weld a vehicle of that size depending on era and complexity you're *probably* stuck buying that surplus from Eastern Europe - EG this: http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-72

Your second point explicitly refers to autistic licensing schemes that infringe upon the second amendment and need to be removed.

Your third point is a local/state issue that you should bring up with your town/state legislator - I made no mention of that in my post.

>>764164
Weird, you've somehow confused positive and negative arguments - funny.
>>
>>764167
>Oh so what restrictions on the first do you want then?
More than none, like you are suggesting
>>
>>764166
I too agree that we should base laws not on how good of outcomes they produce, but on how completely the secure the power of the wealthy and politically-connected.
>>
>>764170
Why do you want to restrict rights?
>>
>>764170
Different anon here:
How does your proposed legislation solve the basic issue of black on black crime and overall social disintegration?

See: Swiss/Finn gun ownership rates versus crime rates.
>>
>>764166
>>764005

>'Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary'

>Karl Marx

The socialists of America stand with you, MAGA chuds.
>>
>>764176
The eternal liberal must be destroyed.
>>
>>764175
Who said i wanted gun control because of negro crime? Fucking retards should not be allowed to own and operate weapons just like they are not able to own and operate vehicles
>>
>>764032
your hair is straight down there yes?
>>
>>764177
Fascists must be destroyed. Liberals must be unplugged from the matrix, radicalized, trained to shoot and unionize their workplaces. Anybody who thinks that the left is afraid of guns gets their opinions on what the left is exclusively from Fox News. I personally welcome MAGA chud converts with welcome arms. Come brother. This world limits your grilling. I can show you a future in which every man, woman and child can grill in peace.
>>
>>764176
The ADA would like a word with you.

>>764176
Okay but you have to shoot the Stalin equivalent who tries to seize power first, okay?
>>
3d printer goes brrrrrrrrrr
https://twitter.com/GrimKim/status/1344003862328446978
And yes, that includes DIY ammunition. We're not talking rocket science here, it's chemistry and mechanical work that all was old-hat over 100 years ago.
>>
>>764181
>Anybody who thinks that the left is afraid of guns gets their opinions
Yep, definitely propaganda. Nothing to do with people basing their characterization of the "left" on the 99.8% of that group composed of liberals and not the 0.2% of actual marxists.
>>
>>764183
>The ADA would like a word with you.
The American Diabetes Association?

>Okay but you have to shoot the Stalin equivalent who tries to seize power first, okay?
Stalin is not on the left, nor was he a socialist. Anybody who simps for Stalin is a tankie and tankies are just authoritarians who think leftist aesthetics is cool. They are not welcome.
>>
>>764191
BASED

Okay, you get my vote.

t. guy forced to pretend I actually care about 90% of conservative clauses beyond limiting immigration and protecting rights

The ADA comment was meant for this guy
>>764179
>>
>>764191
Shouldn't you be taking your lithium, Vaush?
>>
>>764186
People left of liberals can be anybody from justice dems and various progressives all the way to anarcho-syndicalists. It doesn't take much to be left of a liberal these days. I also have some pretty serious concerns with Marxism. I'm more of a libertarian socialist.
>>
>>764197
Pharmaceutical companies are decommodified in my ideal socialist society, friend. This way we ALL take lithium. Free lithium.
>>
>>764198
>justice dems and various progressives
These people are liberals. Anyone of "progressive" sentiment who believes in the reformability of the system and further advocates for the restriction of the capacity of the lower classes to arm themselves and exercise political violence is nothing but a liberal.
>>
>>764202
>These people are liberals.
Well, nah. Not everyone whose political advocacy isn't for the purpose of destroying capitalism is a liberal.

>Anyone of "progressive" sentiment who believes in the reformability of the system and further advocates for the restriction of the capacity of the lower classes to arm themselves and exercise political violence is nothing but a liberal.
Again, no. I'm of the mind that its necessary to reform the system to a certain extent in order to build the conditions necessary to transition to socialism. Can we vote in the destruction of capital? No. Can we vote in expanded healthcare, college loan forgiveness and certain corporate reforms? Absolutely. Good strategy is a combination of electoralism AND direct action. This isn't 19th century Europe - a peasant revolution will never happen in America and if it did we would lose. We're going to have to vote in progress for the first little bit of our journey. The complete destruction of the system has to partially take place from within.
>>
>>764005
the right to behead you is my basic god given duty, infidel
>>
>>764176
Thanks satan
>>
>>764114
That violates heller and mcdonald
>>
>>764206
>Well, nah. Not everyone whose political advocacy isn't for the purpose of destroying capitalism is a liberal.
It's at best semantics. One either rejects the system or is certainly of service to it.

>I'm of the mind that its necessary to reform the system to a certain extent in order to build the conditions necessary to transition to socialism. Can we vote in the destruction of capital? No. Can we vote in expanded healthcare, college loan forgiveness and certain corporate reforms? Absolutely.
You can at best institute mild reforms which amount to a paradigm of philanthropic capitalism. This is in effect beneficial to the system, as is helps to assuage what meager rebelliousness might arise from growing material
stratification and poverty rates.

>We're going to have to vote in progress for the first little bit of our journey. The complete destruction of the system has to partially take place from within.
Your journey ends there and you are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. Automation will eradicate both the labor market and all power the working class possesses inside of 25 years, both in eliminating their labor utility to the ruling power structure and eliminating their relative capacity for violence in seeking concessions via widespread surveillance and automated policing capacity. If you expect the ruling class, and future pseudo-monarchs of Elon Musk's breed, to make concessions to the global working class who have nothing but pity to weaponize then, you are barking fairy tales. The class war was fought and won quietly long ago, we're just living out the results now.
>>
>>764114
bait (and pasta?) but:
>people who are mentally fit
the idea of leftists being banned from owning guns is a fun one.
>>
Guess ya'll brought this on yerselves.
>>
>>764229
>It's at best semantics. One either rejects the system or is certainly of service to it.
It's not semantics. To say that anybody who isn't 100% positive about wanting to dismantle conservative is a liberal is a massive oversimplification of the very broad collection of egalitarian ideals that make up leftism. Besides, even if what you were saying is true I don't believe that all liberal voters are purposeful, malicious pro-capitalist actors. I believe a lot of them are like conservatives - fairly political illiterate populations who vote liberal just on the default of their upbringing or place of birth and simply lack the education to know why their chosen political party isn't capable of achieving the goals they want. A lot of them just need a bit of help

>You can at best institute mild reforms which amount to a paradigm of philanthropic capitalism.
Absolutely. I am not of the mind that we can simply skip the social democracy phase of socialism. We won't jump from end-stage capitalism to a complete decommodification. It just isn't possible. The unfortunate fact is that the country isn't ready. Socialist policies have dismal electoral support.

>Your journey ends there and you are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
I highly disagree. I disagree because the bulk of the people who I aim to radicalize to the left are currently operating within the system. It is absolutely, 100% necessary to meet the working class where they are.

>If you expect the ruling class, and future pseudo-monarchs of Elon Musk's breed, to make concessions to the global working class who have nothing but pity to weaponize then, you are barking fairy tales.
The electoral systems as they stand will make whatever concessions they view as minimally threatening to their control of power. I'm not naive, anon. I don't believe the ruling class will simply hand over power. My advocacy for electoralism ends the second I believe a forceful seizure of capital could be successful.
>>
>>764217
>>764185
also, gun control is fundamentally impossible now. There are now several mostly 3d printed firearm models with home-rifled barrels. In fact, home rifling with ECM allows for barrels of greater accuracy than most standard barrels.
>>
>>764236
>It's not semantics...
It is a broad coalition consisting foremost of normal liberals, the make of which constitute the majority of the politically active in the US today. Virtually all others, who constitute a small fraction of the whole, are entirely indistinct in the results they produce from that body group of liberals. It's not a matter of their being purposefully malicious, or even malicious at all, it is a matter of the power they have to exercise change being no less limited in scope or focus than that of liberals.

>We won't jump from end-stage capitalism to a complete decommodification.
You will never make the jump to de-commodification period, much less through electoral or non-violent means.

>I highly disagree. I disagree because the bulk of the people who I aim to radicalize to the left are currently operating within the system.
They work within the system, as do you, because all other avenues are implicitly understood to be impossible or are explicitly proven to fail. The way you phrase this actually makes me wonder if you really understand what the system is, and how complete it's control is both via controlling the means of change and direction of socialization which shapes the use of these means.

>The electoral systems as they stand will make whatever concessions they view as minimally threatening to their control of power.
These concessions will never extend to meaningful alterations of the power structure as it currently exists or anything beyond milquetoast philanthropic capitalism, because the power to compel such change does not exist.

>My advocacy for electoralism ends the second I believe a forceful seizure of capital could be successful.
It never will be. It is a LARP to suggest otherwise as this point, because, again, the real power of the working and lower classes is decreasing, not increasing, realative to that of the ruling classes and the system itself.
>>
>>764102
>But it's not a human right
>The right to not have a group of elected wealthy bureaucrats monopolise violence isn't a human right
>Not learning anything from the 19th and 20th century
Be a good little prole and fuck off
>>
>>764217
So? Granted, it won't happen with the current Supreme Court, but prior Supreme Court rulings can and have been overturned by new courts under different circumstances. If you live in the fever dream that the Supreme Court will be forever composed of a knuckledragging majority, you're extremely naive.
>>
>>764005
Noo they're gonna take my guns! I will shoot them! I will shoot them all! Aaah the cia is behind this one. They're breeding humans that are half sheep and only need grass to suck their blood.
>>
>>764114
>So, we'll finally start implementing the "well regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment and in the process start saving lives?
If you assholes keep pushing mass censorship and bigotry against white males while also trying to ban guns, then maybe we'll finally start implementing the "being necessary to the security of a free State" clause of the 2nd Amendment.
Go ahead anon, keep pressing your luck.
>>
>>764282
>>764250
You missed that that stopped being a concern about nine months ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zabSOHd0Ag
Why people are so unaware about this I have no idea, semi-auto pistols are on the verge of entering "ancient technology" status. If you're bored enough and have a micrometer, you can make them from a block of metal with a file in the fucking mountains. $200 3D printers made it turnkey.
>>
>>764114
>So, we'll finally start implementing the "well regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment and in the process start saving lives?
Like Chicago or D.C. Good job.

>muh NRA
Muh Bloomberg.

>I'm all for rights as long as it's for things I agree with.
Thank God you're not in a position of power. Unfortunately worse people than you are. Can't wait to see half the country become felons overnight because nobody will comply.

>muh Canada
Nobody cares. Move there.
>>
>>764080
There is no such thing as "rights" no god will give them to you.
There is only entitlements you fight for, and pray tell when did you fight for the "right" to bear arms?
>>
Is this the longest we've gone without a gun massacre in a school? That virus saved the lives of a lot of children
>>
>>764330
No different than any other rights, including those enumerated in the bill of rights, it has historically been sustained by the implicit threat of violence should it be infringed in a manner that deviates from what is generally considered acceptable.
>>
>>764176
I mean this last summer should prove to everyone that the right to bear arms should not be given away.
Progressives and Conservatives, on all things they hate each other for, should be united on this one thing purely from experience alone.
>>
>>764280
Typical non argument
>>
>>764181
This would be great if you also didn't want to kill the people who are doing things like raiding the senate chambers.
The problem is that the radicals on both sides don't like each other despite the fact they agree with one another so fully.
>>
>>764350
Pretty sure dems are warming up to gun ownership. If Joe so much as hints at pursuing a full weapons ban now that he's president he'll lose my vote and thousands of other gun owning democrats as well, and the Democratic party will pretty much be screwed.
>>
>>764358
I think it's only the progressive wing of the Dem party.
The corporate wing, IE all the people who just got elected; they still hate guns because they realize that the other half of their party wants to use them for intimidation.
>>
>>764358
>If Joe so much as hints at pursuing a full weapons ban now that he's president
Because he hasn't been flat-out saying he'll want a full weapons ban? Do I even need to bother finding and posting youtube videos of him saying this, and asking Beto to help him? Same goes for Kamala.

Face it, he's going to try. Anyone with any sense bought all their guns last year. Everyone else now is fucked.
>>
Can anyone here explain the benefits to registering a firearm? Can anyone here tell me why I should be limited to a small number of bullets while criminals are under no constraint? Can anyone here tell me how many AR and AK style rifles exist in the US? Can anyone here tell me what percentage of gun crime is committed with these rifles? Can anyone here tell me what makes a short rifle extra dangerous?
>>
>>764360
>what is virtue signaling
Let me guess, you think Conservatives are going to make abortions federally illegal.
>>
>>764362
So that your capacity for violence against the system is minimized.
>>
>>764362
well if the law gets passed your only choices are to either register your firearms, or play Minecraft
>>
>>764364
>that '94 AWB he helped pass was virtue signalling
>>
>>764345
>No different than any other rights
Correct
>including those enumerated in the bill of rights
You mean bill of pretend rights
>it has historically been sustained by the implicit threat of violence
Maybe historically as in shortly after the founding but not in the past century
> from what is generally considered acceptable.
And there is your reason why rights don't actually exist, your "rights" will be stripped because there is no objective neutral and eternal power to define what is acceptable.
>>
>>764358
>he'll lose my vote
He doesn't need your vote, once he brings in the ban no one who follows him will ever remove it like no one removed the patriot act.
A government that took away your guns will never be retarded enough to reverse a policy like that.
>>
>>764358
>Watch out Joe! If you do that thing you said you'd do I won't vote for you now that you're president.
>>
>>764362
They want confiscation and a registry leads to confiscation
>>
>>764104
>implying those rigger votes were real
>>
>>764376
>objective neutral and eternal power to define what is acceptable.
That power has a name, and his name is John Moses Browning
>>
>>764362
Almost all of this stems from the gangsters of the Prohibition era running around with legally purchased, compact full-auto weapons.
>Can anyone here explain the benefits to registering a firearm?
If anyone commits a crime with that gun, then the purchase can be traced to at leas the person who "lost" it (in a "boating accident" with their buddy Vinny who happens to be an ex-con), who is then in legal trouble. It's a measure to deter the legal acquisition of automatic firearms for known criminal elements. Given that modern gangsters now do most of their crimes with shitty cheap pistols, this seems to have worked.
>Can anyone here tell me how many AR and AK style rifles exist in the US?
There is an estimated 5-10 million AR-15-based weapons in the United States, a mass majority are semi-auto only. AK based weapons have a more nebulous estimate, the number of full-auto AKs is probably only a few thousand at most.
>Can anyone here tell me what percentage of gun crime is committed with these rifles?
NFA registered weapons (with actual full-auto capacity) have been involved in roughly 3 crimes since the passage of the NFA. Rifles (of all types not just AR-15 pattern) accounted for 403 of 10,982 firearms crimes in 2017 (however this data is not complete due to the fact some 3 thousand firearms did not have their type properly recorded, so the true number is probably higher but not by much given the ratio to known handgun and shotgun crimes).
>https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
>Can anyone here tell me what makes a short rifle extra dangerous?
Concealment. Again going back to the prohibition era, short barrel weapons hidden under long coats were used to ambush cops. In more legitimate uses, short barrel length works better in close quarters as it won't get caught on terrain like longer barrels, but the legal reasoning is purely about concealment.

tl;dr it's Al Capone's fault.
>>
>>764412
>If anyone commits a crime with that gun, then the purchase can be traced to at leas the person who "lost" it (in a "boating accident" with their buddy Vinny who happens to be an ex-con), who is then in legal trouble. It's a measure to deter the legal acquisition of automatic firearms for known criminal elements.
Bullshit, the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen or straw purchased. If they are stolen why would you charge someone for having their gun stolen? Straw purchases are illegal but rarely prosecuted as most of the time it is women who do it. Only 8 in every 1000 guns used by criminals are bought in gun shows.
And what if someone scratches off the serial number?
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
>Given that modern gangsters now do most of their crimes with shitty cheap pistols, this seems to have worked.
They use shitty cheap pistols because they are easy to conceal and because they are cheap which is good if you are going to throw the gun away, straw purchase, and are in high proliferation in places that would get robbed because cheap.
>There is an estimated 5-10 million AR-15-based weapons in the United States, a mass majority are semi-auto only. AK based weapons have a more nebulous estimate, the number of full-auto AKs is probably only a few thousand at most.
Please show me one event of someone being murdered via legally owned full auto ak or AR.
>NFA registered weapons (with actual full-auto capacity) have been involved in roughly 3 crimes since the passage of the NFA. Rifles (of all types not just AR-15 pattern) accounted for 403 of 10,982 firearms crimes in 2017 (however this data is not complete due to the fact some 3 thousand firearms did not have their type properly recorded, so the true number is probably higher but not by much given the ratio to known handgun and shotgun crimes).
Weird you chose the exceptionally high year When 2013, 2014, and 2015 didn't break 300 murders
>>
>>764052
>ems started the culture war shit with things like the daily show
>those pesky dems and their late-night comedy shows. clearly this is their fault
>>
>>764412
>NFA registered weapons (with actual full-auto capacity) have been involved in roughly 3 crimes since the passage of the NFA. Rifles (of all types not just AR-15 pattern) accounted for 403 of 10,982 firearms crimes in 2017 (however this data is not complete due to the fact some 3 thousand firearms did not have their type properly recorded, so the true number is probably higher but not by much given the ratio to known handgun and shotgun crimes).
Furthermore rifles vs handguns can often be determined because of how much more devastating a rifle is. See Kenosha Kyle blowing that dudes arm up with his AR. Unless the rifle is shooting a pistol caliber round like a 9mm or .44 mag
>Concealment. Again going back to the prohibition era, short barrel weapons hidden under long coats were used to ambush cops. In more legitimate uses, short barrel length works better in close quarters as it won't get caught on terrain like longer barrels, but the legal reasoning is purely about concealment.
Or, you know they could just carry a fucking handgun? Also considering the proliferation of AK and AR pistols a criminal could easily illegally SBR it and having SBR laws doesn't make them harder to obtain.
>tl;dr it's Al Capone's fault.
It is FDR's fault. Dems were trying to do gun grabs since the sullivan act (Which FDR would have been well aware of and into as he was a democrat from new york) and the dems used the st valentine's day massacre and Mad Dog Coll unintentionally killing a kid as a way to push for gun bans they wanted
>>
>>764431
You don't think Stewart and his proteges had anything to do with all the name calling and hostility people have for the other side politically now?
>>
>>764059
apparently they should have, because now they have no power
>>
>>764431
>>764052
>ems started the culture war shit with things like the daily show
True. I clearly remember Dems shooting up mosques, murdering college girls that wouldn't fuck them and posting their far-left manifestos on the internet because Sony refused to add more black lesbians into their favorite comic book movie franchise.
>>
>>764434
compare tucker carlson's segments with Stewart's. they;re not comparable. carlson attempts and succeeds to instill hate and derision in the audience, while Stewart lightly mocks them. the right are just too much of snowflakes to handle any bants
>>
>>764434
Nope. Conservatives have been pearl clutching and whining at max volume for years about meaningless, made up shit like the war on christmas and late night shows satirize this moronic behavior because its free comedic material and anybody with an emotional age higher than 7 finds it fucking hilarious. It would be a very different story if the insults and criticisms that people like Stewart made about dipshit conservative cry babies weren't 100% true.
>>
>>764434
>>764439
not to mention one is clearly a comedy show, while the other portrays itself very seriously
>>
>>764441
>>764440
>>764439
>>764437
>it is fine when I call the president a fuck weasle and literally hitler because I have a studio audience and a sign telling them to laugh. Constantly attacking the other side and convincing that one bernie bro to shoot that senator during baseball practice had nothing to do with our current state of discourse
>>
>>764447
>proof the right can't meme

All you had to do was have one funny person have a news comedy show. Its not fucking rocket science retard.
>>
>>764454
>All you had to do was have one funny person have a news comedy show
>Okay
>Banned, blocked, deplatformed :)
All you had to do was just not turn into a fascist immediatley upon taking power
>>
>>764454
>All you had to do was have one funny person have a news comedy show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aahWNFojzMU
>>
>>764005
Good.
>>
>>764358
There are many Dems, including me, who are responsible hunters and support regulated ownership of sporting firearms and even handguns (with much stricter regulation). But for the same reason we register vehicles and issue drivers licenses after an individual reaches a relatively responsible age and proves they at least have the knowledge and skill to operate the vehicle, we need to register firearms and require training before issuing a license. This is just common sense.
>>
>>764005
Get your guns confiscated and dilate, fagola.
>>
>>764059
>with no hope of halting the dramatic demographic changes in the United States

That's still happening, gun-owners. Can't kill every Tyrone and José out there.
>>
>>764472
This smells like a Bloomberg script, but if it's not then please tell me what part of the second amendment is about hunting.
>>
>>764078
>while he didn't fuck up the Covid handling dramatically

Yes, he did. Your country's response is abysmal and you lost hundreds of thousands because of it.
>>
>>764472
This is literally word for word the same speech that Australia gave and created a registry. Within a generation they confiscated guns. There is no legitimate reason to licence a basic human right, fatal gun accidents are at an all time low and dropping. There is no legitimate use for a registry. It would not stop or solve crime. Heller already banned restrictive regulation on handguns and both the miller and heller cases are explicitly clear. Hunting rifles are NOT protected by the second amendment and are one of the only guns that can be banned
>>764473
>>764471
Buy a gun and hang yourself
>>764114
Come and take it, bitch boy
>>
>>764427
>>764432
It's fascinating to me that you are giving me a stance when I'm just trying to describe historical precedent or the current data/laws.

>Bullshit, the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen or straw purchased.
I'm giving the reasoning behind the current registry, and for the most part that registry has worked. Only three registered NFA weapons have ever been used in a crime. In addition, the added expense for a transferable firearm, as well as limited supply, are big contributing factors for why these weapons do not end up in the hands of criminals. If AKs were as cheap and plentiful as Glocks, you would see a lot more random crimes committed with AKs.
>Please show me one event of someone being murdered via legally owned full auto ak or AR.
There are none (the 3 NFA weapon murders are all submachine guns), and I never said there were. Anyone who wants to commit crimes with non NFA full-autos either needs black market connections or knowledge of machine tools, which is enough of a filter for the common criminal.
>If they are stolen why would you charge someone for having their gun stolen?
They don't need to be charged, but becoming part of the chain of investigation is often enough of a deterrent, especially when making a big investment. Nobody buying NFA transferable weapons wants to be anywhere near organized crime, this is why most straw purchases are for weapon types that do not need registration.

(1/2)
>>
>>764481
Hunting the British and their Hessian mercs at the time.
>>
>>764485
(2/2)
>Weird you chose the exceptionally high year When 2013, 2014, and 2015 didn't break 300 murders
The other numbers are less recent, and are otherwise not statistically different (2% vs 4%, note that those previous years also mostly had less firearm crimes as well). I don't like your implication, especially since I noted that while the true number might be higher it won't be that much higher assuming the known ratio holds (meaning a majority of unknown firearm crimes will still be handguns). And to make your own point for you, compared to the total number of owned rifles this is incredibly tiny.
>Or, you know they could just carry a fucking handgun?
Remember this was passed in the 1930's, average handgun capacity was nowhere near as good as it was today (revolvers were still the most common handgun, and most automatic pistols were still single-stack). Concealed rifles and shotguns were a considerably larger threat in that day for the amount of firepower you could bring to the table. Modern SBRs and SBS still offer pretty powerful weapons in small packages (as well as the "pistol" conversions you mentioned), but not as dramatically compared to the modern pistol.

Honestly the NFA is proof that nearly every legal owner of a full-auto weapon is an upstanding citizen. If they just repealed FOPA, which would bring new and international full-autos on to the market, with the NFA we would have a damn good balance. Like really, the NFA should be used as ongoing proof that further legislation is irrelevant. Instead the current gun control crowd has no knowledge of it, and the "shall not be infringed" crowd is just attacking every piece of legislation without considering how it could be used to prop up their position with minimal losses.
>>
>>764484
>a basic human right

It's not a basic human right, you've just been brainwashed it has to be. Try to actually use the 2nd Amendment as it was intended and your ass is either dead on the sidewalk or getting plowed by BBCs in the prison shower.
>>
>>764404
He is dead mate, he doesn't hover over your head ready to shoot anyone who infringes your rights.
>>
>>764488
Do you not believe a person has a right to defend himself?
>>
>>764130
Gay rights, civil rights, BIPOC rights, womens' rights, etc. etc.
>>
>>764005
>basic human rights

kek
>>
>>764009
>H.R.30 - To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.
is there even the remotest possibility this will lower gun deaths because of hoodrats?
>>
>>764488
>It is a basic human right, you've just been brainwashed into believe it's not. Try to actually use the 2nd Amendment as it was intended and leftists will cry and clamor for the government to put you in camps and kill you.

FTFY
>>
>>764485
>Only three registered NFA weapons have ever been used in a crime.
How many nonregistered but NFA-liable weapons have been used in a crime, idiot?
> If AKs were as cheap and plentiful as Glocks, you would see a lot more random crimes committed with AKs
I cannot even begin to tell you how detached you are from this issue at every level. Glocks aren't used more in crime than AKs because they're cheaper, they're used more in crime than AK's because it's easier to hide a Glock in your gym shorts.
>Anyone who wants to commit crimes with non NFA full-autos either needs black market connections or knowledge of machine tools, which is enough of a filter for the common criminal.
LMAO, you're such a fucking fool. Do you know what a sawed off shotgun is and how to make one?

> Instead the current gun control crowd has no knowledge of it, and the "shall not be infringed" crowd is just attacking every piece of legislation without considering how it could be used to prop up their position with minimal losses.
Take your boneheaded flabberbrained milquetoast centrism and go pretend registration isn't regularly used as a tool of confiscation in any other country it's ever been implemented in somewhere else
>>
>>764845
>people carrying arms in defense of their countrymen against government brutality
>damn straight, America 4eva
>those people are black
>bomb their houses and their children, murder them all, that's not what guns are for

One way or the other, bootlicker. No conservative has ever led a revolution, it's against their nature.
>>
>>764878
>No conservative has ever led a revolution, it's against their nature
Aren't your corporate sponsors over at Disney calling January 6th something like that?
>>
>>764878
The people here want more people to have guns, not less. We're not Ronald Reagan.
>>
>>764005
Don't care.
>>
I just find this so funny:
>left wants to ban guns but wants easy access to abortions because people will get them anyway if they're illegal
>right wants to ban abortions but wants easy access to guns because people will get them anyway if they're illegal

Don't really have a point I'm trying to make here, I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is but I do think that there's a lack of critical thinking on both sides at the moment.
>>
>>764142
Then the 1st only applies to the hand-cranked printing press of the 18th Century. Looks like we can shut down newspapers at will, boys!
>>
>>764973
I've already explained why this reduction to absurdity doesn't work. Also show me specifically where the 1st Amendment only covers printing presses.
>>
>>764483
70k died at least due to Democrats doing one thing alone. The original projection was 2 million dead in a year or so. We don't even have the highest death rate.
>>
>>764485
>It's fascinating to me that you are giving me a stance when I'm just trying to describe historical precedent or the current data/laws.
Because you are doing it wrong and are presenting an anti gun argument
>I'm giving the reasoning behind the current registry,
The reason behind the current registry for NFA items is to make it so they would be easier to confiscate in the future.
> and for the most part that registry has worked. Only three registered NFA weapons have ever been used in a crime.
That has nothing to do with them "being registered" and everything to do with machine guns being expensive as fuck. And it isn't 3 registered NFA items, it is 3 registered machine guns. NFA also includes SBRs, SBS, DD, and suppressors.
>In addition, the added expense for a transferable firearm, as well as limited supply, are big contributing factors for why these weapons do not end up in the hands of criminals. If AKs were as cheap and plentiful as Glocks, you would see a lot more random crimes committed with AKs.
AKs were as cheap as glocks for years, just not the full auto ones. The issue is full auto isn't needed for crimes and you can't CC a rifle as well as a hand gun.
>There are none (the 3 NFA weapon murders are all submachine guns),
Machine guns, not NFA, see above.
>and I never said there were. Anyone who wants to commit crimes with non NFA full-autos either needs black market connections or knowledge of machine tools, which is enough of a filter for the common criminal.
lightning links are readily available
>They don't need to be charged, but becoming part of the hat do not need registration.
Straw purchases are for things that need 4473s. People don't straw purchase NFA items because if you are going to do that crime you might as well illegally manufacture and SBS. Having a registry does literally ZERO to stop crimes. The issue is concealability and price and full auto not being needed for crimes. Criminals saw off shotguns and rifles all the time.
>>
>>764487
>The other numbers are less recent, and are otherwise not statistically different (2% vs 4%, note that those previous years also mostly had less firearm crimes as well). I don't like your implication, especially since I noted that while the true number might be higher it won't be that much higher assuming the known ratio holds (meaning a majority of unknown firearm crimes will still be handguns). And to make your own point for you, compared to the total number of owned rifles this is incredibly tiny.
You specifically picked a year when a high profile mass shooting accounted for 15% of all rifle murders so you could push the number up.
>Remember this was passed in the 1930's, average handgun capacity was nowhere near as good as it was today (revolvers were still the most common handgun, and most automatic pistols were still single-stack).
Murders and gang activity don't require 30 round mags and rifle rounds. Look at any city or state's guns used in crimes. .22lr and revolvers are over represented because executing someone at point blank isn't that hard and because they are available (and revolvers are popular because criminals see them as being higher power and not dropping rounds on the ground). Most stats on defensive shootings show that fewer than 5 rounds are fired by the defender.
>>
>>764487
>Honestly the NFA is proof that nearly every legal owner of a full-auto weapon is an upstanding citizen.
Rich people don't commit violent crimes, more news at 100.
>If they just repealed FOPA,
Repeal the hughs amendment. the FOPA other than the hughs amendment is good and good for gun owners.
> which would bring new and international full-autos on to the market, with the NFA we would have a damn good balance. Like really, the NFA should be used as ongoing proof that further legislation is irrelevant. Instead the current gun control crowd has no knowledge of it, and the "shall not be infringed" crowd is just attacking every piece of legislation without considering how it could be used to prop up their position with minimal losses.
Fuck off you anti gun cocksucker. NFA items are banned in multiple states. The ATF shouldn't even fucking exist and the registry, paperwork, and tax parts of the NFA are fucking disgusting. The NFA was made to prevent anyone who wasn't rich from owning guns. If the tax stamp kept up with inflation it would be about $4,000. The NFA was used to get the bullshit miller ruling which is the argument from which all other gun laws came from. It needs to be struck down along with all other gun laws.
tl;dr kill yourself you anti gun piece of shit who wants a registry so he can confiscate guns.
>>
>>764819
>>764488
It is a basic human right. You have been brainwashed to believe humans are slaves who have no rights and exist only to be chattel of the state.
>>764733
Who said he was the one who would be doing that?
>>764739
And we are fighting for the rights of fags, darkies, and roasties to own guns. Also civil rights are gun rights
>>764843
not in the slightest.
>>764878
An anti gun commie calling others bootlickers when they want big daddy government to fuck them in the ass and keep them on a leash is a joke. And conservatives were the ones who did the American revolution because they were against taxes, tyranny, and gun grabbing. But thanks for admitting the confederates were leftists.
>>764922
makes sense, why would someone who isn't American care? Why are you posting here though?
>>764979
>>764973
In Caetano v. Massachusetts the SCOTUS already said unanimously that weapons made after 1790 were protected by the 2nd amendment and people at the time of the writing of the 2A had privately owned canons and warships.
>>
>>764994
>Who said he was the one who would be doing that?
He is not objective, neutral and eternal thus he can't define what is acceptable.
>>
>>764052
If you start smearing shit on the walls of congress you're not human so your point about human rights is moot.
>>
>>765000
False. Try praying to him
>>765003
Why are you so mad about people pooping in a toilet. Are you indian?
>>
>>764005
>human rights

Keep coping that your leaders weren't ruthless enough to actually crush your enemies.
>>
>>764994
triggered mutt
>>
>>765062
triggered chang
>>765030
keep coping about being a slave
>>
>>765071
No, retard. You're about to be the slave, because you have no leadership and no desire to obtain or exercise power.
>>
>>765080
>you are a slave because you have no master
We aren't turning in our gun's like you did.
>>
>>764020
There's only 1 party and you're not in it. The rest is just illusion of choice
>>
>>765109
Thanks Vlad
>>
>>765089
Please don't turn in your guns so they will come for you.
>>
>>765109
>>765111
Come and take it, bitch boy
>>
>>764078
The culture war is just spoon-fed corporatism
>>
>>765111
If they come for me you better hope they can get to me before I get to you.
>>
>>764366
only correct answer
>>
>>765118
>come and take my gun with your soft, supple liberal hands
>>
>>765179
Gay
>>
Kaotic new angle of shooting
>>
>>764009
Im sure this was a response to the mass shootings that happened at Capitol Hill.
>>
>>765398
what mass shootings?
>>
>>765415
You know, the ones where violent MAGA rioters killed dozens of cops while proclaiming they wanted to kill democracy itself? It's all over the leftist news.
>>
>>764005
As long as police can shoot you for thinking you have a gun it I won't believe it ever was a real right anyway.
>>
>>765427
They shoot you even if you don't have a gun. I just want you to be able to defend yourself, Anon.
>>
>>764005
Good! America needs far better gun regulation. It's right there in the second amendment.
>>
Ah fuck, it's really going to happen, isn't it?

The Democrats are going to look at the coming depression, the 30 million about to be homeless, and the looming climate collapse and go BETTER SPEND THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS FOCUSING ON BANNING ASSAULT REVOLVERS

Because we're serious and pragmatic technocrats who have studied the Art of the Possible, which is why we know that keeping planet Earth habitable by humas isn't practical, but it is imperative that nobody have more than 2.8252 bullets in their gun.
>>
>>765526
More than one thing can be focused on, anon. All these issues are important. The amount if time proper gun regulation takes is really just up to how much of a shitstorm people like OP make over it.
>>
>>765595
>The amount if time proper gun regulation takes is really just up to how much of a shitstorm people like OP make over it.
It's going to be eternal, you've not going to pass a single law, gun ownership will continue to grow and you're going to cry about it
>>
>>765595
>All these issues are important.
These issues are not even in the same galaxy, nay the same fucking universe of importance. Spending political capital on the reduction of individual rights right now instead of addressing the catastrophic inequality and economic circumstances right now is unfathomable.
>>
>>765600
>Spending political capital on the reduction of individual rights right now instead of addressing the catastrophic inequality and economic circumstances right now is unfathomable.
Welcome to Democratic rule, where nothing gets done and it's always the oppositions fault, even when they have a super-majority.
>>
>>765598
We'll see.

>>765600
I agree gun regulation reform isn't on the same level as climate or getting a proper healthcare system but it's still an important issue that needs to be addressed. People like OP who threaten to murder government officials if they don't get what they want prove that. The US is a powderkeg waiting to blow. Other issues can't be properly dealt with when people use violence as a bargaining chip.

And make no mistake, regulation IS coming. It's just up to you how messy it is. I am all for guns in their proper context, the use of them just needs to be regulated. As the second amendment says.
>>
>>765606
>it's still an important issue that needs to be addressed.
We've already addressed it- you lost.

>People like OP who threaten to murder government officials if they don't get what they want prove that.
Remember last week when the entire left threatened to hang Mitch McConnell for not voting for $2,000 stimulus checks?

>Other issues can't be properly dealt with when people use violence as a bargaining chip.
Agreed- stop using government crackdowns on people's rights as a bargaining chip.

>the use of them just needs to be regulated. As the second amendment says.
Well regulated does not mean legislation. You lost this argument already as well. "It means proper working order"- meaning a militia needs to the best weapons in order to function properly.

That means semi-automatics like AR-15s, and high capacity magazines over 30 rounds. You lost, cry about it.
>>
>>765601
I think it's the West Wing that broke their brains, they all embraced a show about how the highest virtue of liberalism is not being able to fix anything and made the dumb show the center of their being.
>>
>>765611
>We've already addressed it- you lost.
Hardly. Or there wouldn't be all these tantrum threads over impending regulation.

>Remember last week when the entire left threatened to hang Mitch McConnell for not voting for $2,000 stimulus checks?

No. Got a link for any prominent left leaning leader or politician calling for murder?

>Agreed- stop using government crackdowns on people's rights as a bargaining chip.

Unregulated gun ownership isn't a right, that's the point.

>the use of them just needs to be regulated. As the second amendment says.

>Well regulated does not mean legislation. You lost this argument already as well. "It means proper working order"- meaning a militia needs to the best weapons in order to function properly.

I've seen you say this before and honestly can't tell if you're baiting out of desperation or just delusional. A bunch if random people with however many guns they can collect in unregulated arsenals is the exact opposite of a well regulated militia as described. Every time you say that it proves further you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

When democratically elected officials by the vast majority who want tighter gun regulation pass laws and attempt to enforce them, will you comply or continue to threaten or use violence? That's the real question.
>>
>>765643
>Hardly. Or there wouldn't be all these tantrum threads over impending regulation.
Agreed. If you'd stop throwing tantrums over not being able to pass gun control, we wouldn't have this problem.

>No. Got a link for any prominent left leaning leader or politician calling for murder?
Sure, here you go!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

>Unregulated gun ownership isn't a right, that's the point.
Yes it is, it doesn't stop being a right simply because you don't like it.

>A bunch if random people with however many guns they can collect in unregulated arsenals is the exact opposite of a well regulated militia as described.
Thats exactly what a militia is you stupid fuck. The US code literally makes separate definitions for organized and unorganized militias.

Lets conduct a thought experiment.

>A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the healthfulness of a free State, the right of the people to keep and prepare breakfast foods, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to keep and bear breakfast foods, the breakfast or the people?
Does balance in this definition mean the government gets to decide whats balanced and whats not?

>When fascists take your rights away and make it illegal for you to resist peacefully, will you comply or continue to threaten or use violence?
Take a guess, fascist.
>>
>>765648
It's your thread of whining lol. That Wikipedia article isn't what I asked for. Specific example of what you claim? So far you're the only one I see threatening actual violence ( and proudly so) also you don't seem to understand the definition of a milita, let alone a well regulated one. Once more you prove to be a prime example of why better rules are needed and coming.
>>
>>765683
>let alone a well regulated one
no that guy, but this doesnt mean what you think it means. The definition way words are used can change over time, at the time the second amendment was written regulated meant functioning and was not at all associated with the modern definition or making rules/laws to control something.
Using the definition that was in place at the time, if you had a well regulated clock it would be one that kept good time not one that was a government approved clock.
>>
>>765683
>That Wikipedia article isn't what I asked for. Specific example of what you claim?
https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330
https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1307185651968811008

>also you don't seem to understand the definition of a milita, let alone a well regulated one.
Please provide your special snowflake definition so we can debunk it and laugh at you.

>Once more you prove to be a prime example of why better rules are needed and coming
Just like they were under Obama, right? Lmao
>>
>>765697
Nothing about the current state of gun ownership is well regulated by any definition, that's the point.

>>765702
Neither if those are direct threats of violence as you describe.

My OED denotes a milita as

1: A sytem of military discipline, organisation and tactics; a means of conducting warfare

2: A military force, a body of soldiers

3: the body of people legally liable to military service without enlistment

So what's yours?
>>
>>765726
>Nothing about the current state of gun ownership is well regulated by any definition, that's the point.
Agreed, and if you're going by the actual definition of well regulated and not the made of leftist one, it is solely the fault of gun control proponents who don't understand guns or the laws they attempt to pass.

>So what's yours?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
>>
>>765734
So what's your definition of well regulated?
>>
>>765697
>Using the definition that was in place at the time, if you had a well regulated clock it would be one that kept good time not one that was a government approved clock.
Does a "well regulated" clock start randomly spinning around, sending out the cuckoo to announce the hour when it's 11 minutes, 18 minutes, 47 minutes past 12 o'clock, and fail to appear at 1 o'clock?

Does Billy Bob, who never had any firearms training and has a mental capacity slightly above literal retardation being permitted to accumulate a veritable arsenal of assault weapons who decides to blow away his immediate family because mom was late heating up his chicken tendies sound like a "well regulated clock?" How about Cletus, convicted of a felon? How about Jim Bob, who accumulated a massive arsenal that no one knew about after becoming a radicalised white supremacist/nationalist posting death threats against everyone and everything he didn't like, and implementing them? How about the marginalized goth HS students at Columbine who accumulated an arsenal and rampaged through Columbine? How about the loony that attacked Sandyhook? And on, and on, and on, ad infinitum until we wake up and smash the ridiculous stranglehold the NRA has on the American people.

Well regulated clock my ass! Try harder!
>>
>>765697
What if my well regulated clock keeps breaking into schools and murdering children
>>
>>765518
What part of "shall not be infringed." is confusing to you?
>>
>>765771
Then you put the clock down. You don't ban clocks, if that's what you are suggesting.
>>
>>765595
We will do everything in our power to make gun control as painful and time consuming for you commies as possible.
>>765600
Which is what the dems will do because denying human rights is their number 1 priority.
>>765606
>gun regulation reform
kill yourself you newspeak faggot
>but it's still an important issue that needs to be addressed.
come and take it
> People like OP who threaten to murder government officials if they don't get what they want prove that.
Dems have been threatening to murder Trump for years now.
>Other issues can't be properly dealt with when people use violence as a bargaining chip.
It is a check and balance
>And make no mistake, regulation IS coming. It's just up to you how messy it is.
Come and take it. I will sooner tear the nation asunder than surrender my arms
>I am all for guns in their proper context,
quit lying fag
>the use of them just needs to be regulated. As the second amendment says.
what part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you to understand?
>>765643
>Hardly. Or there wouldn't be all these tantrum threads over impending regulation.
Fighting tyranny is not throwing a tantrum
>No. Got a link for any prominent left leaning leader or politician calling for murder?
Weird how you move the goalposts.
>Unregulated gun ownership isn't a right, that's the point.
It is, come and take it, Chang.
>>the use of them just needs to be regulated. As the second amendment says.
The second amendment says no such thing.
>I've seen you say this before and honestly can't tell if you're baiting out of desperation or just delusional. A bunch if random people with however many guns they can collect in unregulated arsenals is the exact opposite of a well regulated militia as described. Every time you say that it proves further you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The right to own guns has nothing to do with the militia. See heller.
>>
>>765791
>We will do everything in our power to make gun control as painful and time consuming for you commies as possible.
This is why sentient beings refer to these things as wedge issues. You spend so much time shadowboxing an invisible enemy you completely fail to notice that every single politician you support is a fucking monster that hates you. People like you are the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I can't imagine the amount of dipshittery one needs to participate in to be a single issue voter on an platform as performative and impertinent to the lives of every day American as gun regulation.
>>
>>765791
>Dems have been threatening to murder Trump for years now.
Give us some evidence of this that isn't a screenshot from some random Twitter user.

>Come and take it.
Quit with the posturing and just shoot up an Applebee's already. We all know you don't actually give a shit about the well being of the country - you're just a violent degenerate looking for any excuse to get blood on your hands.
>>
>>765796
>invisible enemy
Gaslighting isn't very effective when your thread is occupied by plenty of anti-guns.
>>
>>765643
>When democratically elected officials by the vast majority who want tighter gun regulation pass laws and attempt to enforce them, will you comply or continue to threaten or use violence? That's the real question.
Zero chance I comply with anything a politician I didn't personally vote for passes. I don't care if it is unanimous. The dems have zero right to deny the rest of the USA their basic human rights.
>>765683
You moved the goalposts and by US law every abled bodied man from the ages of 17-45 is part of the militia in the USA. This would be expanded to people who aren't able bodied via section 504 and I am pretty sure the CRA expands it to olds and women.
>>765726
>Nothing about the current state of gun ownership is well regulated by any definition, that's the point.
It is over regulated
And the OED has zero to do with the dick act, you retard
>>765796
I would literally vote for Satan himself over a democrat. That is how disgusting and evil I find gun control. If it is such a wedge issue fucking everyone over, drop it from your platform commie. It is your fault for making your platform so disgusting, toxic, and evil. I literally don't even read the rest of platforms, just the gun rights/control part. Stay mad.
>>765797
>Give us some evidence of this that isn't a screenshot from some random Twitter user.
MOVING THE GOALPOSTS. You fags say that the people protesting in the capital count as GOP leaders but say dem voters don't count the same way. Good one.
>Quit with the posturing and just shoot up an Applebee's already. We all know you don't actually give a shit about the well being of the country - you're just a violent degenerate looking for any excuse to get blood on your hands.
Come and take it, bitch boy. I'd sooner see the nation dissolved than give up my rights to a fucker like you. And dems do most of the mass shootings if you use the GVA definition, so stop blaming gun owners.
>>
>>765800
Individual people being anti-gun on a tibetan cross-stitching forum is irrelevant to my position and the position of the government. You've been trained by Murdoch and the NRA and the rest of the conservative media machine to fear a thing that isn't real because dipshits like you keep their coffers full. So long as they can scare low IQ knuckle draggers into thinking you need them to save you from destruction they'll keep fear mongering all the way to the bank.

>I would literally vote for Satan himself over a democrat. That is how disgusting and evil I find gun control.
Then you've been successfully brainwashed into voting against your own issue for the sake of a performative issue that has very little to do with your life or the lives or everyday Americans. You're a poster child for how easily a human being can be programmed.

>MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.
You made the claim that Democrats have been planning to murder Trump for years and I asked for evidence.

>You fags say that the people protesting in the capital count as GOP leaders but say dem voters don't count the same way
If there were a significant portion of Dem politicians on Twitter retweeting Dem voters calling for Trump to be executed you would have a point but they weren't so you don't. There WERE, in fact, a significant portion of GOP politicians on twitter calling for mobs to storm the capital. Caught in another lie, dipshit. Its amazing you're so incredibly convicted to an ideology that it takes 30 seconds to pull apart. You can't even get two sentences into explaining the ideology you've dedicated your whole life to without blatantly lying and contradicting yourself. To quote Trump himself, "SAD!".
>>
>>765810
>Individual people being anti-gun on a tibetan cross-stitching forum is irrelevant to my position and the position of the government. You've been trained by Murdoch and the NRA and the rest of the conservative media machine to fear a thing that isn't real because dipshits like you keep their coffers full. So long as they can scare low IQ knuckle draggers into thinking you need them to save you from destruction they'll keep fear mongering all the way to the bank.
Look, your gaslighting is cute, but you literally cannot put the rabbit back in the hat. All it takes is the effort to google Biden's gun platform, that of countless democraft legislators and thought leaders, or even a quick look at the guns section of the most recent Dem debates to BTFO you the fuck out. Shitpost somewhere else.
>>
>>765810
>Individual people being anti-gun on a tibetan cross-stitching forum is irrelevant to my position and the position of the government. You've been trained by Murdoch and the NRA and the rest of the conservative media machine to fear a thing that isn't real because dipshits like you keep their coffers full. So long as they can scare low IQ knuckle draggers into thinking you need them to save you from destruction they'll keep fear mongering all the way to the bank.
The majority of dems ran on anti gun platforms and dems like Bloomberg spend more money on anti gun propaganda and lobbying than the NRA spends
>Then you've been successfully brainwashed into voting against your own issue for the sake of a performative issue that has very little to do with your life or the lives or everyday Americans. You're a poster child for how easily a human being can be programmed.
Stripping me of my basic human rights and taxing me to death and censoring my speech is not part of my interests, Chang
>You made the claim that Democrats have been planning to murder Trump for years and I asked for evidence.
And you said twitter users don't count even if they are registered democrats, but random people in a protest count as republicans.
>If there were a significant portion of Dem politicians on Twitter retweeting Dem voters calling for Trump to be executed you would have a point but they weren't so you don't. There WERE, in fact, a significant portion of GOP politicians on twitter calling for mobs to storm the capital.
How is protesting in the capital murder you retard?
> Caught in another lie, dipshit. Its amazing you're so incredibly convicted to an ideology that it takes 30 seconds to pull apart. You can't even get two sentences into explaining the ideology you've dedicated your whole life to without blatantly lying and contradicting yourself. To quote Trump himself, "SAD!".
Not at all. You are the one moving the goalposts saying protesting is murder.
>>
>>765803
>Zero chance I comply with anything a politician I didn't personally vote for passes. I don't care if it is unanimous.
Enjoy federal prison, my edgy anarcho friend.
>>
>>765831
Kek, must suck being poor and not having land. When you have land, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
>>
>>765822
>dems like Bloomberg spend more money on anti gun propaganda and lobbying than the NRA spends
[citation required]

>Stripping me of my basic human rights and taxing me to death and censoring my speech is not part of my interests, Chang
You have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. Firearms are not a basic human right. That retarded talking point is not true no matter how many times you repeat it. If you don't want to pay taxes then move to the fucking woods. You don't get to participate in society and simultaneously complain about the price it takes to sustain it. Getting banned from twitter for organizing a terror attack is not censoring your speech.

>And you said twitter users don't count even if they are registered democrats, but random people in a protest count as republicans.
Random twitter users who want to assassinate Trump weren't publicly sponsored by government officials with political power. The MAGA terrorists who attacked the capital and murdered a cop were sponsored by government officials with political power. There is the difference. I don't know how to explain it any simpler.

>How is protesting in the capital murder you retard?
.... because several people were killed?

>Not at all. You are the one moving the goalposts saying protesting is murder.
You are literally illiterate. I've explained no less than 4 times

>>765813
You haven't refuted a single thing I said. All you can do is vaguely gesture at a bunch of nebulous forces like "thought leaders" to justify your fear of a thing that isn't happening. You can't even cite any policy. All you can do is publicly quiver in fear about an issue that doesn't even affect the lives of every day Americans.
>>
>>765833
>When you have land, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
Why am I not surprised that you're fucking dumb enough to think that federal law doesn't apply to landowners.
>>
>>765831
>implying
>>765835
>[citation required]
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/480404-gun-control-groups-spend-big-in-2020
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/2018-gun-control-outspends-nra-rights/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/mike-bloombergs-gun-control-outspends-nra-helps-democrats-win-virginia.html
>You have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. Firearms are not a basic human right. That retarded talking point is not true no matter how many times you repeat it.
The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right. Stay mad, Chang.
>If you don't want to pay taxes then move to the fucking woods. You don't get to participate in society and simultaneously complain about the price it takes to sustain it.
Stealing all my income to pay for lazy fuckers is not a necessary price of society and not in my interests
>Getting banned from twitter for organizing a terror attack is not censoring your speech.
Who said dick about twitter?
>Random twitter users who want to assassinate Trump weren't publicly sponsored by government officials with political power. The MAGA terrorists who attacked the capital and murdered a cop were sponsored by government officials with political power. There is the difference. I don't know how to explain it any simpler.
There were GOP politicians telling people on twitter to murder cops?
>.... because several people were killed?
So dems are calling for murder by supporting BLM due to the people murdered at BLM rallies?
>You are literally illiterate. I've explained no less than 4 times
Nope, you moved the goalposts you fag.
>>
>>765835
>You haven't refuted a single thing I said. All you can do is vaguely gesture at a bunch of nebulous forces like "thought leaders" to justify your fear of a thing that isn't happening. You can't even cite any policy.
literally the link in OP and https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
>All you can do is publicly quiver in fear about an issue that doesn't even affect the lives of every day Americans.
Arresting Americans for owning guns and denying them their basic human rights.\ affects their everyday lives.
>>765837
Are you going to send cops door to door to search with no warrant?
>>
>>765783
>Then you put the clock down
No, you fix the clock so it really is "well regulated" again. It's an antique clock, designed 250+ years ago, in fact, quite valuable to many Democrats as well as Republicans. It needs repairs and fixing.
You know, contrary to your loony rightwing echo chambers, many Democrats own firearms and use them for responsible hunting and *gasp* a handgun they target practise with. I would wager serious money that Biden has used firearms more often than Trump. Although Trump's kids, who love to pay tens of thousands of dollars go on exotic hunts in Africa to kill endangered species to obtain a skull they can put on their wall, lovingly gaze at and whack to, might have him beat.
>>
>>765863
>No, you fix the clock so it really is "well regulated" again.
I agree, all gun control laws need to be struck down.
> It's an antique clock, designed 250+ years ago, in fact, quite valuable to many Democrats as well as Republicans. It needs repairs and fixing.
You know, contrary to your loony rightwing echo chambers, many Democrats own firearms and use them for responsible hunting and *gasp* a handgun they target practise with.
False, dems don't own guns
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/gun-ownership-partisan-divide.html
secondly, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It says nothing about hunting. Neither miller nor heller say hunting arms are protected. Literally the only thing the government can regulate are hunting and target shooting guns.
>I would wager serious money that Biden has used firearms more often than Trump. Although Trump's kids, who love to pay tens of thousands of dollars go on exotic hunts in Africa to kill endangered species to obtain a skull they can put on their wall, lovingly gaze at and whack to, might have him beat.
How does this change the fact that Biden is an authoritarian, human rights denying, piece of shit gun grabber?
>>
>>765856
>schizo posting
Oof!
>>
>>765837
I'm not surprised to see that your fantasy is a surveillance state where everyone's activities are monitored on every inch of US soil. In reality, though, you can basically do whatever you want when uncle sam can't see it.

>>765835
>You haven't refuted a single thing I said. All you can do is vaguely gesture at a bunch of nebulous forces like "thought leaders" to justify your fear of a thing that isn't happening. You can't even cite any policy. All you can do is publicly quiver in fear about an issue that doesn't even affect the lives of every day Americans.
Okay, I get it You aren't gaslighting, you are just retarded. How does a ward of the state get to browse 4chan?
>>
>>765911
>get called out for lying
>muh schizo posting
cope
>>
>>765916
You will never have a second term
>>
>>765917
You will never be American
>>
>>765920
Pipe down, minority.
>>
>>765917
You will never be a woman.
>>
>>765923
A majority of Americans are republican
>>
>>765927
Lol
>>
>>765924
>>765917
>>
>>765932
Voted for Biden. Not get Dilating.
>>
>>765929
Dems aren't Americans
>>765936
buy a gun and hang yourself
>>
>>765936
>buy a gun and hang yourself
Not until you finish dilating.
>>
>>765781
What part of "well regulated" confuses you?

>>765791
>Dems have been threatening to murder Trump for years now.

Specific example?

>Fighting tyranny is not throwing a tantrum

It's the tyranny of unstable psychopaths with arsenals full of weapons who threaten death on anyone who wants to regulate them that is the tyranny I am fighting. And we both know my side will win sooner or later, whether you choose to die for your cause is your choice I could care less.
>>
>>765965
>What part of "well regulated" confuses you?
The part where you intentionally, in clear bad-faith continue to suggest a meaning which has been show countless times in this thread and others to be ahistorical to when the amendment was penned.
>>
>>765916
>>765917
>>765920
>>765923
>>765924
>>765927
>>765929
>>765936
>>765944
>>765946
The fuck? Literally shit flinging on /news/ w/o even a subtle sarcastic twist or irony. Familiar with that on a lot of other boards, *sigh*.
>>
>>765965
>What part of "well regulated" confuses you?
The part where you use it intentionally incorrectly when it refers to "in working order" and refers to the militia clause and not to private gun ownership.
>Specific example?
Gab has a whole searchable database they are putting out soon of twitter replies
>It's the tyranny of unstable psychopaths with arsenals full of weapons who threaten death on anyone who wants to regulate them that is the tyranny I am fighting.
So you are fighting the tyranny of people having basic human rights and the tyranny of people not being chattel slaves?
> And we both know my side will win sooner or later,
You will not
>whether you choose to die for your cause is your choice I could care less.
come and take them, bitch boy
>>765972
weird how you don't quote the dems calling people schizo or mentally ill
>>
>>765985
>Gab has a whole searchable database they are putting out soon of twitter replies
You've been asked for specific examples probably six times in this thread now to support your claim and you can't even come up with one. All you can do is vaguely state that there's some tweets out there. How is it you're so constitutionally incapable of backing up any of the claims you're making? You believe 100% in an ideology that you can't even coherently defend.

>basic human rights
You keep using that term and you have no idea what it means. Owning a gun is not a basic human right. Its shocking that a grown adult would be stupid enough to think such a thing.

>come and take them, bitch boy
You're such an incredible pussy. Nobody's impressed with your tough guy act, pussy. As a gun owner, you give gun owners a terrible name because you don't give a shit about the country or personal rights or other people. You just use gun ownership as a stand in for your complete lack of identity and to compensate for your sense of inadequacy. Owning a gun is your entire personality and you threaten to shoot anybody who messes with you because inside you're a soft little bitch.

>weird how you don't quote the dems calling people schizo or mentally ill
Its not shit flinging if its true.
>>
>>765870
>False, dems don't own guns
Lmao, the link you posted clearly said no such thing. My experience indicates otherwise as well. In fact, responsible, reasonable firearm regulation is what most Republicants and Democrats want and if we could cut the 9 heads off of the monster Hydra NRA, we could get it done.

>How does this change the fact that Biden is an authoritarian, human rights denying, piece of shit gun grabber?
The fact Trump, a Republican, wouldn't know which end of a rifle to hold against his shoulder, whereas Biden, a Democrat, has *gasp* actually fired one? Idk, seems relevant. As far as your absurd assertions about Biden: Dude, seek some help before you do something you might regret and have your arsenal confiscated.
>>
>>765997
>In fact, responsible, reasonable firearm regulation is what most Republicants and Democrats want and if we could cut the 9 heads off of the monster Hydra NRA, we could get it done.
This is obviously untrue, otherwise support for expanded gun control legislation would not be so electorally unpopular in red and purple districts.
>>
>>765970
Even if you say it was meant to be like a working clock, the current reality is nothing like that. You saying the same ridiculous thing over and over doesn't make it true.

>>765985
>Gab has a whole searchable database they are putting out soon of twitter replies

Cool beans, I'll wait for just one solid example.

>So you are fighting the tyranny of people having basic human rights and the tyranny of people not being chattel slaves?

My human right to not have unchecked violent sociopaths with arsenals if weapons trumps what you think yours is. Period.

>You will not
We both know I will. It's the will of the vast majority and why you keep making these desperate threads. You can cry about it, but being the minority you really don't have a say. The next mass shooting that happens while people with sense are in power will show you.

>come and take them, bitch boy
I don't have to, that's the point. You can choose to die in a shoot out with law enforcement if you want but I won't be there. Unless you're planning on just a random killing spree when you don't get what you want which only proves my point further and completely solidifies the one from the previous paragraph.

Anyways, have fun with your empty screams and cries of tyranny, my hard work is only beginning and you personally don't matter in that equation.
>>
>>766017
>Even if you say it was meant to be like a working clock, the current reality is nothing like that. You saying the same ridiculous thing over and over doesn't make it true.
Nothing in this entire country is working properly, it is irrelevant. "Well regulated" did not mean or support legal restriction, and "shall not be infringed" further rebuked such measures. Stop appealing to language that does not mean what you want it to.
>>
>>766022
But it did mean that the people making up the milita were well regulated so the milita has a purpose. How you don't see that having active official members with registered arsenals is better than every Yahoo, Muhammad, Adijiwabe and Sanchez with a basement full of military grade weapons ready to go crazy on whomever at a moment's notice. In a sane world you would be the people calling for better regulations.
>>
>>765995
>You've been asked for specific examples probably six times in this thread now to support your claim and you can't even come up with one. All you can do is vaguely state that there's some tweets out there. How is it you're so constitutionally incapable of backing up any of the claims you're making? You believe 100% in an ideology that you can't even coherently defend.
Here are some links faggot
https://www.wptv.com/news/state/miami-dade/south-florida-man-accused-of-making-twitter-threats-against-mitch-mcconnell
https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/protesters-shout-death-threats-outside-mitch-mcconnells-home/
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article247017617.html
https://local12.com/news/nation-world/man-gets-18-months-in-prison-for-threatening-to-kill-trump
https://mashable.com/article/threatening-posts-secret-service/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/09/politics/arrest-white-house-threat-president-trump/index.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/man-sentenced-threatening-kill-president
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/us/politics/ricin-trump.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-18-months-prison-threatening-kill-trump-70350318https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/18/i-hope-trump-is-assassinated-a-missouri-lawmakers-facebook-comment-leads-to-calls-for-her-resignation/
>You keep using that term and you have no idea what it means. Owning a gun is not a basic human right. Its shocking that a grown adult would be stupid enough to think such a thing.
The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly a basic human right and that is why it is protected in the constitution. Stay mad, Chang.
>>
>>765995
>You're such an incredible pussy. Nobody's impressed with your tough guy act, pussy. As a gun owner, you give gun owners a terrible name because you don't give a shit about the country or personal rights or other people. You just use gun ownership as a stand in for your complete lack of identity and to compensate for your sense of inadequacy. Owning a gun is your entire personality and you threaten to shoot anybody who messes with you because inside you're a soft little bitch.
"Reee other people are pussies because they aren't afraid of guns and are willing to stand up for their rights and beliefs"
>Its not shit flinging if its true.
And there you go again with the shit flinging and lying, Chang
>>
>>765997
>Lmao, the link you posted clearly said no such thing.
The link shows that the vast majority of gun owners are republican and no guns are dems
>My experience indicates otherwise as well.
anecdotal evidence
> In fact, responsible, reasonable firearm regulation
define this
>is what most Republicants
demonstrably false. 78% of republicans are against all new gun regulations. Plus the GOP wouldn't be pro gun if not for the fact the voters are pro gun and anti gun shit gets people kicked out of office in red and purple districts
https://news.gallup.com/poll/325004/support-stricter-gun-laws-lowest-level-2016.aspx
>and Democrats want
democrats want confiscation
>and if we could cut the 9 heads off of the monster Hydra NRA, we could get it done.
Anti gun groups spend more than the NRA does. The NRA gets its power from people voting pro gun, not from any political donations.
>The fact Trump, a Republican, wouldn't know which end of a rifle to hold against his shoulder, whereas Biden, a Democrat, has *gasp* actually fired one? Idk, seems relevant.
Not at all. Biden is explicitly a gun grabber and a piece of shit. The fact he owns one fudd shotgun is not relevant. Trump owns guns too. Being a gun owner does not make you pro gun.
>As far as your absurd assertions about Biden:
the easily sourceable ones?
https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/21/joe-biden-told-voters-the-second-amendment-does-not-protect-an-individual-right/
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
https://www.wral.com/fact-check-biden-falsely-says-people-couldn-t-own-cannons-during-revolutionary-war/19170342/
>Dude, seek some help before you do something you might regret and have your arsenal confiscated.
"we are going to deny you your basic human rights for not praising the tyrant coming into office despite you not doing any crimes"
>>
>>766017
>Even if you say it was meant to be like a working clock, the current reality is nothing like that. You saying the same ridiculous thing over and over doesn't make it true.
Yes, we need to eliminate all gun laws to have it work properly.
>Cool beans, I'll wait for just one solid example.
Here are some links faggot
https://www.wptv.com/news/state/miami-dade/south-florida-man-accused-of-making-twitter-threats-against-mitch-mcconnell
https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/protesters-shout-death-threats-outside-mitch-mcconnells-home/
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article247017617.html
https://local12.com/news/nation-world/man-gets-18-months-in-prison-for-threatening-to-kill-trump
https://mashable.com/article/threatening-posts-secret-service/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/09/politics/arrest-white-house-threat-president-trump/index.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/man-sentenced-threatening-kill-president
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/us/politics/ricin-trump.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-18-months-prison-threatening-kill-trump-70350318https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/18/i-hope-trump-is-assassinated-a-missouri-lawmakers-facebook-comment-leads-to-calls-for-her-resignation/
>My human right to not have unchecked violent sociopaths with arsenals if weapons trumps what you think yours is. Period.
Where does it say that in the constitution faggot? Because I can show you where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I can also show you how it is such an important right it was listed second, only after freedom of expression and religion.
>>
>>766017
>We both know I will. It's the will of the vast majority
It is not, if it was the republican revolution would never have happened as a result of the 1994 awb. And regardless, the majority does not have the right to deny the minority their basic human rights.
> and why you keep making these desperate threads. You can cry about it, but being the minority you really don't have a say. The next mass shooting that happens while people with sense are in power will show you.
come and take it, bitch boy. The fact you shill up these threads is because you know you are powerless and can't stop gun rights.
>I don't have to, that's the point. You can choose to die in a shoot out with law enforcement if you want but I won't be there.
So A. you are admitting to being a coward b are a psychopath who wants half the nation murdered. And C are a literal retard if you think Americans are going to turn in guns or that LEOs will enforce gun confiscation. There is no registry they don't know who to go to and sheriffs in places like NY and Va have said they will not enforce gun laws made by the state. Add to that that only 5% of NYers complied with safe act registration requirements and 0 people in anti gun NJ surrendered a bump stock or mag above 15 rounds to the cops you are delusional if you think gun control will be obeyed
>Anyways, have fun with your empty screams and cries of tyranny, my hard work is only beginning and you personally don't matter in that equation.
You are irrelevant Swalwell, you have lost and will continue to lose. There are over 400,000,000 guns in private hands in the USA and you have no way to track them. The LEOs won't enforce it and with 3d printers, the genie is already out of the bottle. You can't stop the signal, you can only cry on here every time someone makes a pro gun thread.
>>
>>766027
>registered arsenals
NZ, Aus, and UK all used their registries for confiscation. That is why we negotiated and got federal registries banned in the FOPA in exchange for banning new MGs. Registries are a nonstarter, cope.
>In a sane world you would be the people calling for better regulations.
So move there and leave my nation you communist piece of shit
>>
>>766518
>So A. you are admitting to being a coward b are a psychopath who wants half the nation murdered.

I am practical. You are clearly unhinged and violent and regularly threaten to use your guns. If course I wouldn't come get them myself, that's what law enforcement is for. You are the one openly threatening to murder half the country if you don't get what you want. It is you and your ilk who are proof that tighter regulation is needed and coming. Go ahead and start your war, you will lose and I will reap the reward of a more peaceful country once people like you are dead or behind bars.
>>
>>766519
>NZ, Aus, and UK all used their registries for confiscation.

That's the plan, and how it will happen. Enjoy your boom toys while you still have them and remember to shoot first so the authorities know who you are and how to deal with you. :)
>>
>>764005
Wouldn't the Capitol have been better defended if the senators and representatives valued the 2nd amendment and were armed accordingly?
>>
>>766552
Thomas Massie said on twitter he was packing during it
>>766529
Registries are illegal.
>>766524
How is murdering half the country practicle? and when have I threatened to murder anyone? And if you are so upset about guns emigrate. Because there is no way you are confiscating 400 billion guns
>>
>>766552
Feinstein carries a pistol, she just doesn't think the proles should be able to.
>>
>>766567
>400 billion guns
No, last estimate was in the millions and the fun fact is the vast majority of them are held by a very small number of loonies who accumulate enormous arsenals to compensate for their, shall we charitably say, defecient physical endowments. And likely, they are already on Government lists so that rounding them and their guns up would be a cake walk.
>>
>>766619
>last estimate was in the millions and the fun fact is the vast majority of them are held by a very small number of loonies
LMAO, no. 80-85% of the people panic buying guns in the l;ast year were first time buyers. Everybody has a gun now. You lost.

Do you think maybe there's a reason why very few people will admit publicly to researchers that they own firearms? Because you people are fascists and no one is going to admit they posses the tools to over throw you so that you can make them register them in preparation for confiscation.

Again, you lost. We're keeping our guns and you will die mad about it.
>>
>>766622
>Because you people are fascists and no one is going to admit they posses the tools to over throw you so that you can make them register them in preparation for confiscation
You have no idea what fascism is. No one is coming to take your guns. You conservative dipshits have been riding that particular piece of propaganda since the fucking 80's.

>Again, you lost. We're keeping our guns and you will die mad about it.
I'm not the poster you were responding to. He's trolling you because you're clearly unhinged but I have a serious response. 40% of the first time gun buyers this current buy wave were black people and women. These are precisely the people who leftists like me want armed. This is a big win, honestly.
>>
>>766630
>You have no idea what fascism is. No one is coming to take your guns
>>766619
>And likely, they are already on Government lists so that rounding them and their guns up would be a cake walk.
Nobody believes you. Your doublespeak is plainly evident.

>40% of the first time gun buyers this current buy wave were black people and women.
Good. They're finally waking up to how racist and sexist Democrat enacted gun control laws are.
>These are precisely the people who leftists like me want armed. This is a big win, honestly.
Then I'm sure you wont support any of the new gun control legislation being proposed by the Democrats, as it will most certainly be targetted at minorities who own firearms.

Oh no, that's right, you'll capitulate and turn black gun owners into the police for likes on social media.
>>
>>766619
>loonies
brit bong detected. I'm not even going to reply to your dumb ass drivel
>>766630
>You have no idea what fascism is.
It has a D next to its name
>you should tell that to the anti gun fags itt
> You conservative dipshits have been riding that particular piece of propaganda since the fucking 80's.
and in that time the UK, Aus, and NZ confiscated guns
>I'm not the poster you were responding to. He's trolling you because you're clearly unhinged but I have a serious response. "anyone who disagrees with me is crazy"
>40% of the first time gun buyers this current buy wave were black people and women. These are precisely the people who leftists like me want armed. This is a big win, honestly.
Not really as they are going to vote republican because leftists like you support gun confiscation and chattel slavery to the state
>>
>>766634
>Good. They're finally waking up to how racist and sexist Democrat enacted gun control laws are.
Hm, well, no. They're finally waking up to how dangerous right-wing extremists and fascist authoritarians are. Black people and women didn't buy up guns because they're terrified of Democrats, anon.

>Then I'm sure you wont support any of the new gun control legislation being proposed by the Democrats, as it will most certainly be targetted at minorities who own firearms.
I don't support Dems on their position on firearms but I sure as hell vote for them over conservatives. Its a simple matter of choosing my enemy. So long as conservatives threaten to dismantle my country I can never focus on neo-liberalism as my main enemy. Conservatism needs to be made completely irrelevant. Once they are destroyed then the battle can be between progressives and neo-liberals. That's a battle that can be won.

Also, Democrat gun policies are mostly performative. There aren't anywhere near enough progressives in their party to get anything meaningful passed. That's why they posture and virtue signal - because, ultimately, they aren't ideologically dedicated to anything. They support their corporate backers as much as conservatives do. Biden will most like posture about mag restrictions or gun taxes and never get anything done, a) because he doesn't actually give a shit about gun violence and only uses it as a wedge issue to make himself look good compared to conservatives and b) because he knows nothing of the sort has a chance of passing and all he needs to do is present some sort of legislation that he knows is going to fail and say "ahh, well, dang, I tried you guys!" for his base to be satisfied. Dems are cringe as fuck but I'm not a single issue voter. Conservatives are fucking animals and they all need to be put on a trash barge and pushed out to sea. I'll put up with dumb dem policies until that's accomplished.
>>
>>766650
>fascist authoritarians
Thats what I said, Democrats. you know, the ones trying to pass gun control laws.

>Black people and women didn't buy up guns because they're terrified of Democrats, anon
I doubt that. You should push for Democrats to take away their guns, see how well that reasoning holds up, you fascist.

>I don't support Dems on their position on firearms but I sure as hell vote for them over conservatives.
So then you do support their position on firearms and you're arguing in bad faith? Gotcha.

>So long as conservatives threaten to dismantle my country
You're not an American, you can stop pretending.
>muh baseless retard rage political fantasy
Oi ou goh a loicense foh dat argyuement, m8? Itch chewsday der innit?
>>
>>766650
>Black people and women didn't buy up guns because they're terrified of Democrats, anon.
If I had to guess, it was a combination of fear of police and bad times generally given the intensifying unrest owing to Corona.
>>
>>766650
>Also, Democrat gun policies are mostly performative.
Jesus Christ you are that faggot. We get it, you are anti gun and will go through any lengths to defend democrats gun bans because you want people disarmed so that the fascist dems can use them as chattel to the state with no rights because you are upset your mom told you to get a job.
Stop writing that same scripted reply over and over when you are going to spend the next 80 posts defending democrats gun bans
>>
>>766567
>Registries are illegal.
For the time being, that's why laws need amending.


>How is murdering half the country practicle?
You tell me, it's your threat.

> and when have I threatened to murder anyone?

Almost every time it's brought up that gun reform is inevitable you and your ilk respond with threats of violence. Or do you want to clarify what you mean by "come and take it, bitch boy" and other similar comments regarding government officials who may come for your guns when the laws change. If you'll be willing to non-violently engage in a buy-back program or something similar then I'll take it back but you've never seemed to indicate anything of the sort.


>And if you are so upset about guns emigrate.

That's a hard no. Not ever. I will fight for justice and better laws to make the country as good as it can be.
>>
>>766630
>You conservative dipshits have been riding that particular piece of propaganda since the fucking 80's
Coincidentally, that was the same time that the NRA began to be funded primarily by donations from the gun industry instead of by individual members focused on the use of firearms for hunting/sporting. That's also when having obtained complete financial control over the NRA, they installed leadership who turned it into a massive lobbying power, buying off Republican Legislators to promote the fiction that the only thing standing between a citizen and tyranny, was an accumulation of enormous stockpiles of popguns and ammo. It didn't matter that anyone with an IQ above 80 should be able to realize that popguns and pipe bombs would be no match for the US Military.

The irony of it is, a true attempted revolution by a populace armed with popguns against a standing military of the size and scope of the US, could only have a prayers chance in hell with substantial military equipment/logistics assistance (control) by another major world power like Russia or China. And guess what? In the extremely unlikely event you prevailed, it would be THAT world power who took over control of the US, not self appointed General Billy Bob and his staff of inbreds. And another scenario would be that world powers, observing the US Military occupied with fighting an insurgency, would form alliances with each other, invade and annihilate both group.

There is literally no scenario that succeeds in this fever dream, sold lock stock and barrel to the gullible pawns by the NRA and their opportunistic Legislators who enjoy being in the pocket of the NRA.
>>
>>766682
>For the time being, that's why laws need amending.
So you are asking us to compromise by going back on your compromise.
>You tell me, it's your threat.
When did I say that.
>gun reform
Kill yourself and stop trying to use newspeak
>Almost every time it's brought up that gun reform is inevitable
It isn't
>and your ilk respond with threats of violence.
"come and take it" is a threat of violence?
> Or do you want to clarify what you mean by "come and take it, bitch boy" and other similar comments regarding government officials who may come for your guns when the laws change.
I don't see how suggesting that I have a right to defend myself is threatening violence.
> If you'll be willing to non-violently engage in a buy-back program
How is it a "buy back" if the feds never sold me the gun?
>or something similar then I'll take it back but you've never seemed to indicate anything of the sort.
Zero chance I am surrendering my guns.
>That's a hard no. Not ever. I will fight for justice and better laws to make the country as good as it can be.
So you will fight to end all gun control laws?
>>
>>766692
>Coincidentally, that was the same time that the NRA began to be funded primarily by donations from the gun industry instead of by individual members
CITATION NEEDED
>on the use of firearms for hunting/sporting.
The revolt at cincinnati was in response to the GCA of 1968 and the mulford act because dems and reagan were trying to make it impossible to own or do anything with guns.
>That's also when having obtained complete financial control over the NRA, they installed leadership who turned it into a massive lobbying power,
The revolt at cincinnati was done by the rank and file members, not some big bad boogie man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7460CZcGJRY
>who turned it into a massive lobbying power, buying off Republican Legislators
anti gun groups outspend the NRA. The NRA's power comes from the fact people won't vote for politicians not endorsed by the NRA.
>to promote the fiction that the only thing standing between a citizen and tyranny, was an accumulation of enormous stockpiles of popguns and ammo.
It is
> It didn't matter that anyone with an IQ above 80 should be able to realize that popguns and pipe bombs would be no match for the US Military.
You should tell that to Ho Chi Minh
>>
>>766692
>The irony of it is, a true attempted revolution by a populace armed with popguns against a standing military of the size and scope of the US, could only have a prayers chance in hell with substantial military equipment/logistics assistance (control) by another major world power like Russia or China. And guess what? In the extremely unlikely event you prevailed, it would be THAT world power who took over control of the US, not self appointed General Billy Bob and his staff of inbreds. And another scenario would be that world powers, observing the US Military occupied with fighting an insurgency, would form alliances with each other, invade and annihilate both group.
You are acting like the the french didn't help
Washington or that Vietnam and North Korea aren't self governing.
>There is literally no scenario that succeeds in this fever dream, sold lock stock and barrel to the gullible pawns by the NRA and their opportunistic Legislators who enjoy being in the pocket of the NRA.
Says the faggot who literally believes propaganda Billionaire Michael Bloomberg told him
>>
>>766698
>So you are asking us to compromise by going back on your compromise.

No, I'm saying the current gun laws need reform and that reform us all but inevitable at this point. Maybe it'll take 10 or 20 years, but likely not that long.

>I don't see how suggesting that I have a right to defend myself is threatening violence.

It's not defending yourself if it's breaking the law.

>Zero chance I am surrendering my guns.

Okay. So let's imagine a scenario. I think it's inevitable or very likely, you currently don't, but that's beside the point this is just a thought exercise.

A gun registry bill is passed into law. The types and number of guns an individual is allowed to own is restricted and current gun owners are expected tp register the guns they own and sell the ones that previously were allowed and now aren't to the government for safe keeping or destruction.

You, as you indicate here choose not to comply and keep all your guns unregistered in your basement or wherever. Then me, or someone like me, knowing your vocal opinions and previous gun ownership calls up the local constabulary and says I have it on good authority that Billybob Gunfan has a large number of illegal and unregistered weapons in your possession.

There's a knock on your door by law enforcement who want to inspect your premises for illegal items. Will you peacefully let them do their governmental duties, pay your fines and relinquish your illegal guns?

If the answer is no, what is your plan? How will you respond?
>>
>>766710
>There's a knock on your door by law enforcement who want to inspect your premises for illegal items. Will you peacefully let them do their governmental duties, pay your fines and relinquish your illegal guns?
It’s scary that you have no problem with this
>>
>>766720
It's scary to me that you do, but it doesn't answer the question at hand. How will you respond? Everything you've said implies violence, but I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify in the even I've read you wrong.
>>
>>766710
>No, I'm saying the current gun laws need reform
Yes, we need gun laws eliminated. That is the reform we need
> and that reform us all but inevitable at this point. Maybe it'll take 10 or 20 years, but likely not that long.
We have the courts cuck.
>It's not defending yourself if it's breaking the law.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."~Thomas Jefferson
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
>A gun registry bill is passed into law.
illegal
> The types and number of guns an individual is allowed to own is restricted and current gun owners are expected tp register the guns they own and sell the ones that previously were allowed and now aren't to the government for safe keeping or destruction.
No one in the usa will comply with this shit
>You, as you indicate here choose not to comply and keep all your guns unregistered in your basement or wherever. Then me, or someone like me, knowing your vocal opinions and previous gun ownership calls up the local constabulary
> the local constabulary
>constabulary
Kill yourself before I throw your shit in the ocean again
>>
>>766702
Vietnam and North Korea are in no way shape or form comparable to an armed insurgency attempting to overthrow the US Government fighting against the US Military in 2021+. That's a fiction you use to validate your fever dream.
>muh Bloomberg
Idk what you're talking about. Until I heard him mentioned by the rabid gun nuts I knew nothing about his position on gun control. The argument I presented in my post I haven't seen anywhere else either.

Another thing that's missing from your fever dream is the enormity of suffering in terms of disease, lack of potable water and hunger among many others. We're not talking about missing a dinner, CFA being closed on Sunday or untreated cancer. We're talking about starvation and communicable diseases like typhus, dysentery, cholera, plague, etc. The destruction of the basic infrastructure to heat or cook food dispose of waste, transportation, etc. Now, it won't only effect the insurgents it will affect untold millions upon millions.

So in your fever dream of saving America, you'll end up utterly destroying it and in the end have nothing to show for it other than another major world power, even more tyrannical, cleaning up your mess and taking power.

I wish you people could have a member of your cult with the intelligence to convince you of how far from any conception of reality you have strayed. But ofc, that would be asking far too much.
>>
>>766731
>Kill yourself before I throw your shit in the ocean again

Not an answer to the question, and we both know many many people in the US will. Again, even if you think it unlikely, what will your response be?
>>
>>766747
Do I need to kick your shit in at the old north bridge again, Nigel?
>>766740
>Vietnam and North Korea are in no way shape or form comparable to an armed insurgency attempting to overthrow the US Government fighting against the US Military in 2021+. That's a fiction you use to validate your fever dream.
sure thing there buddy. Illiterate rice farming manlets sis a successful insurgency and you expect 100,000,000 gun owners to be less successful?
>Idk what you're talking about. Until I heard him mentioned by the rabid gun nuts I knew nothing about his position on gun control. The argument I presented in my post I haven't seen anywhere else either.
He literally founded and funds moms demand action, every town, and the trace. If you are anti gun there is a good chance you partake in his propaganda
>Another thing that's missing from your fever dream is the enormity of suffering in terms of disease, lack of potable water and hunger among many others. We're not talking about missing a dinner, CFA being closed on Sunday or untreated cancer. We're talking about starvation and communicable diseases like typhus, dysentery, cholera, plague, etc. The destruction of the basic infrastructure to heat or cook food dispose of waste, transportation, etc. Now, it won't only effect the insurgents it will affect untold millions upon millions.
>So in your fever dream of saving America, you'll end up utterly destroying it and in the end have nothing to show for it other than another major world power, even more tyrannical, cleaning up your mess and taking power.
I'm not giving up my guns, so you gotta ask yourself if all the things you just listed are worth it to you to try to come take them
>I wish you people could have a member of your cult with the intelligence to convince you of how far from any conception of reality you have strayed. But ofc, that would be asking far too much.
Says the fag who wants to confiscate guns from at least one third of the population
>>
>>766750
>Do I need to kick your shit in at the old north bridge again, Nigel?


Are you still claiming not to be violent? Lol. Not helping your case much. So far all you're doing is proving me right. Violent psychos like you should not have access to any number of guns you feel like and laws to make sure of that are in the works. You know it as well as I do, it's why these threads get posted.

So again, if you're still trying to claim not to be threatening violence if you don't get what you want then explain what you actually mean when you say things like this.
>>
>>766754
Weird how you keep shitposting here despite being conformed for being a bongistanian and not a human. Why do you care about US gun laws so much? I hope this video helps explain to you my position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZMmPWTwTHc
>>
>>766758
I'm not watching your video, use words like a big boy. If you claim not be threatening violence then explain yourself. Or at least be honest.
>>
>>766762
I believe that video properly explains my position to someone on your intellectual level, bong
>>
>>766655
>Thats what I said, Democrats. you know, the ones trying to pass gun control laws.
Incorrect. You have no idea what fascism is. You're just so irrationally obsessed with this one issue you think that someone's position on it is indicative of their entire worldview. Believe it or not, anon, owning a gun isn't an issue pertinent to the every day lives of most Americans. Most Americans don't live or die by solely gun issues.

>I doubt that.
I'm sure you do. Nothing about the discourse surrounding Trump, fascism, or the rise of far-right violence would indicate to me that first time gun owners were buying guns because they were afraid of violent Democrats burning their houses down. All of the people who are terrified of having their Arby's raided by transgendered MS-13 communists because Fox News told them are conservatives and they already own guns. Owning guns is an identity to them.

>So then you do support their position on firearms and you're arguing in bad faith? Gotcha.
You're a dipshit. I'm not a single issue voter. I agree more with Democrats on issues than I do with conservatives, therefore I vote Democrat. How is this is a difficult concept to understand? Again, your confusion comes from the fact that all you give a shit about is gun so you can't possibly fathom that any politically active person would make their decisions based on anything else.

>You're not an American, you can stop pretending.
Born and raised, chudman. I own a shit ton of guns and I'm a socialist. I also work in armed security and carry a gun regularly as a part of my job so, yeah, seethe to your heart's content.

>Oi ou goh a loicense foh dat argyuement, m8? Itch chewsday der innit?
The election is over, Ivan. Your troll farm services are no longer needed.
>>
>>766764
I don't get the bong reference but whatever. I am not watching your video. All I ask is you to clarify your stance in violence as a way of enforcing your opinion. You claim not to, but every time we get to details you just go back to veiled or direct threats which proves my point exactly.
>>
>>766750
>I'm not giving up my guns, so you gotta ask yourself if all the things you just listed are worth it to you to try to come take them
Do you get off on pretending you're tough on the internet?
>>
>>766750
>I'm not giving up my guns, so you gotta ask yourself if all the things you just listed are worth it to you to try to come take them

This sounds exactly like you're threatening to not just to murder those who disagree but destroy the whole country. Which part of that am I misinterpreting? If you start killing people because you don't like the laws being changed that's no one's fault but yours.
>>
>>766772
>You're a dipshit. I'm not a single issue voter. I agree more with Democrats on issues than I do with conservatives, therefore I vote Democrat. How is this is a difficult concept to understand? Again, your confusion comes from the fact that all you give a shit about is gun so you can't possibly fathom that any politically active person would make their decisions based on anything else.
You go into every one of these threads and use the same scripted argument where you bad faith call gun laws not a big deal and then go on for post after post defending the democrats for trying to ban guns.
>>766776
>I don't get the bong reference but whatever.
https://i.imgur.com/c69Z6.jpg
> I am not watching your video.
the video explains it quite well. It is only 3 minutes long
>>766777
>>766780
I'm not "pretending" to be tough. You have created an environment where there is no reason not to be tough.
>>
>>766780
Not even that same anon but you're a fucking faggot.

>This sounds exactly like you're threatening to not just to murder those who disagree but destroy the whole country.
If the whole country decides to be anti-freedom and thinks they can take what's mine on a whim, then this is no longer a free country and I'm not obligated to be a part of that. Quite the contrary. I have a duty to rebel against that. An obligation.

>If you start killing people because you don't like the laws being changed that's no one's fault but yours.
If you think you're going to come into my home and take what's mine, and I'm just going to sit here like a bitch and allow that to happen, then you don't know the meaning of American. No bullshit, I'm willing to die for this. Are you?
>>
>>766780
This guy is what happens when owning a gun becomes your entire identity. He's a perfect product of surgical conservative brainwashing because think about it - to your average 40% of America who doesn't have $400 for emergencies, doesn't have access to decent healthcare and whose main priorities is securing basic housing, food and a future for their families - how important to you think owning a $1500 AR-15 with a 100 round drum mag to protect themselves from some vague, undefined threat of hypothetical tyranny is to them? To people who live in chronic debt and survive paycheck to paycheck on a daily basis, how often is owning an arsenal a serious, subsistence issue that meaningfully affects their lives? Not the fuck at all. That's why Fox and Murdoch and all the other conservative media machines convince people like this guy to live and fucking die by these singular, divisive issues that don't really affect anybody just to keep them distracted from the whole metric fuck ton other issues that actually affect people's lives. He's a perfect specimen - a guy who is SO convinced that Democrats are fascists because of their performative stance on a substanceless wedge issue that he's willing to vote against his own healthcare, education and environment and sell his allegiance to a fucking death cult simply to satiate this embedded delusion that owning a gun is the only thing that gives his life purpose. This man really is a shockingly relevant commentary on the psychological depravity of modern politics. Not only does he submit to a party that wants him dead - he fights tooth and nail for their right to kill him. THIS, unironically, is the essence of Orwellian thought - the concept of training someone to not simply survive underneath the crushing boot of Big Brother but to actively love and celebrate it. A perfect cult member through and through.
>>
>>766750
>100,000,000 gun owners to be less successful?
There you go again trembling in your fever dream anon. The vast majority of those, both Repubs and Dems, own firearms for hunting and perhaps a pistol or 2. They couldn't give a single shit if their firearms are registered and they have to take a safety class to obtain a license, or that assault weapons, mag clips, and whatever other toys you paintball warriors whack off about that have no earthly purpose other than stoking your delusions of grandeur about saving freedom cannot be sold and you're required to sell them back to the govt. Nor are they concerned that the mentally ill (might want to check the mirror on that one), felons or children can't own firearms. One thing they will give a shit about is you paintball warriors running an insurrection that results in their way of life becoming the equivalent of an ISIS held town while under constant attack from the military.

I guess that's one more fictional narrative that the NRA and their bought and paid for Legislators have sold you. Wake up before it's too late pawn, you're being played like a badly tuned fiddle.
>>
>>766817
I have over $30k in the bank, have zero debt outside my mortgage, which at this point the property value is over $100k more than I owe. I have very good health insurance.
But you know, you are that faggot who defends gun control tooth and nail in each one of these threads because you want to be able to own slaves so bad
>>
>>766824
>>766824
>There you go again trembling in your fever dream anon. The vast majority of those, both Repubs and Dems, own firearms for hunting and perhaps a pistol or 2. They couldn't give a single shit if their firearms are registered and they have to take a safety class to obtain a license, or that assault weapons, mag clips, and whatever other toys you paintball warriors whack off about that have no earthly purpose other than stoking your delusions of grandeur about saving freedom cannot be sold and you're required to sell them back to the govt. Nor are they concerned that the mentally ill (might want to check the mirror on that one), felons or children can't own firearms. One thing they will give a shit about is you paintball warriors running an insurrection that results in their way of life becoming the equivalent of an ISIS held town while under constant attack from the military.
Your statement is divorced from reality and all the data shows the opposite of what you state. And the idea of licencing a basic human right is fucking disgusting.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/325004/support-stricter-gun-laws-lowest-level-2016.aspx
>Nor are they concerned that the mentally ill (might want to check the mirror on that one),
A. I'm not mentally ill great job with that dumb strawman
B. mentally ill people are allowed to own guns. Children can too in some circumstances. And courts have given gun rights back to nonviolent felons.
>I guess that's one more fictional narrative that the NRA and their bought and paid for Legislators have sold you.
Once again, the NRA donates less than anti gun groups donate and way less than things like pharma or oil lobbies. The NRA wields power because we vote and we primary anti gunners.
>Wake up before it's too late pawn, you're being played like a badly tuned fiddle.
Says the faggot who shills for Michael Bloomberg
>>
>>766793
That's nice. If you can't articulate your thoughts yourself you're even stupider than I thought at first.

>>766794
>. I have a duty to rebel against that. An obligation.

Rebel with guns, violence and murder?
>>
>>766839
You seem to be mad. Is that because we aren't your colonies anymore? Did you pay your queen your internet licence?
>>
>>766839
Come to my home with guns and I will respond in kind. Now I'm not naive to think I can survive a full-blown SWAT team. I'm probably dead if that happens. But I'm taking someone with me to hell. Now how long do you think you can sustain that kind of invasion when I guarantee there are more people like me in this world?

And you better pray that if the police do show up they get me because if I get away I'm going straight for the people who voted for this shit. In minecraft.
>>
>>766841
I'm not mad, I'm practical. You show signs of sociopathy and repeatedly threaten violence. Although I think guns are useful and important tools, I also think it's important to keep them out of the hands of unstable persons like yourself. My advocacy for that it's anger, it's ambition.

>>766856
At least you're honest, but I also think you're stupid and short sighted. If you choose to die in a firefight with the government that's cool beans in my book. I just think you're kind of a dipshit for choosing that option. But hey, fight for what you believe, dude.
>>
>>766873
>If you choose to die in a firefight with the government that's cool beans in my book. I just think you're kind of a dipshit for choosing that option.
I respectfully disagree. I've served the government faithfully for six years. I've done my time in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's appropriate that I should die by their hand. I mean if I can't be trusted with an AR-15 on my own despite carrying one for half a decade, if I haven't earned the right to carry a fucking gun in this country, then I guess I'm too much of a threat and we may as well get this over with.

Unless you got some other options for me.
>>
>>766873
You have already shown yourself to be british. Your bait has no power here
>>
>>766836
>Your statement is divorced from reality and all the data shows the opposite of what you state
Anon, the people who own firearms for hunting and a couple of handguns can say whatever they like, but they categorically will NOT go to the mat for your "right" to own weapons and accoutrements whose sole function is to kill people or to stop responsible, sensible gun control measures. Not to mention your delusion they'll support you destroying their and their families quality of life, standard of living, and even their lives themselves. In fact, a lot of assault weapons owners won't support it either because fighting in a protracted insurrection just ain't as comfy as playing paintball, filling up on pizza and beer, going home to shitpost on chans or wherever, LARPing as a rebel, watching some anime and sleeping in a cozy bed.

Will there be some diehards like yourself (giving you a lot of credit here because you haven't really addressed any of the issues I've raised about what living as an insurrectionist against an enormously powerful government with the strongest military in the world would be like) who are willing to be spattered into goo to satisfy their corrupted egos? Sure. But when push comes to shove, not nearly as many as you see in your fever dreams.
>>
>>766878
Well I will say this, I think responsible gun regulation means you're exactly the kind of person who should be allowed to own an AR15. I just think not every Tom, Dick and Azizza should without checks and balances. And 1 AR15 is one thing, several dozen is another matter. Unless you're a weird autist collector, but then you'd want your collection officially catalogued.

Again, guns are good. They're incredibly useful. And normal citizens should be allowed to have a handgun for defense or a rifle for hunting if they want, but not just every random dude shouldn't be allowed to have access to as many AR15's as they can afford with no checks or regulation. I hope you if anyone would get that.

Also I hope you don't die in a fire fight. I want peace, that's the whole point.

>>766902
Lol I get it now, you noticed I prefer more traditional spellings, but the colours didn't show what you thought they did. And you still never answered my question.
>>
>>766921
>And 1 AR15 is one thing, several dozen is another matter.

I'm sorry but you do realize that (most) people only have two hands, right? So what if somebody owns 50 AR-15s. He can't use them all at once at the same time.
>>
>>766910
>Anon, the people who own firearms for hunting and a couple of handguns can say whatever they like, but they categorically will NOT go to the mat for your "right" to own weapons and accoutrements whose sole function is to kill people or
What do you think the function of a handgun is?
>to stop responsible, sensible gun control measures.
Define this, because as I showed you 78% of republicans are against all new gun laws.
> Not to mention your delusion they'll support you destroying their and their families quality of life, standard of living, and even their lives themselves.
Once again, in anti gun NJ, literally 0 people complied and turned in mags above 10 rounds or bump stocks, do you really think people in red states will comply?
>In fact, a lot of assault weapons
Define this
>owners won't support it either because fighting in a protracted insurrection just ain't as comfy as playing paintball, filling up on pizza and beer, going home to shitpost on chans or wherever, LARPing as a rebel, watching some anime and sleeping in a cozy bed.
Once again, even in anti gun states like NY and NJ we see mass noncompliance. In NYC and Virginia literally every county outside their major city declared themselves a sanctuary county and the sheriffs said they wouldn't enforce state law.
>Will there be some diehards like yourself (giving you a lot of credit here because you haven't really addressed any of the issues I've raised about what living as an insurrectionist against an enormously powerful government with the strongest military in the world would be like) who are willing to be spattered into goo to satisfy their corrupted egos? Sure. But when push comes to shove, not nearly as many as you see in your fever dreams.
Said the tory to General Washington
>>766921
It isn't the spelling, it is the slang and other terms. See the ones I green texted
>>
>>766928
Of course but he can hand them out to his 50 equally unqualified, unhinged friends. That's a recipe for disaster that doesn't need to be made.

>>766935
What you just greentexted isn't even me you tard.
>>
>>766952
In my other posts replying to you you retarded bong
>>
>>766952
OR consider the possibility that maybe he has 50 AR-15s because if an AWB passes they can increase in value 50 fold. A full auto mac-10 built before 1986 only cost $120 (about $250 adjusting for inflation) to make, now costs $10,000 if you can even find one for sale.

>but then you'd want your collection officially catalogued.
Why? So the government can demand a buyback where they only give you $200 for all 50 rifles and a coupon for Applebees? Fuck that.
>>
>>766959
In that case I don't even know what you mean but either way you're delusional. I guess you think we're all hillbillies? Nice job defecting from the actual discussion though. We both know you can't handle it.

>>766967
Profiting off weapons of war in times of strife is almost worse lol. Even more reason for scrutiny of those who collect firearms.
>>
>>766994
No, I think that because you are obviously not American your opinion on this topic is irrelevant and pretty sad due to how obsessed you are
>>
>>766935
Thanks for demonstrating you have no answers to the issues I raised. Saying, "Mommy, I ain't giving up my play toy" to a city or State is far different than saying it to the US Govt. And as I said before which you have not contradicted, there are very few willing to participate in a protracted insurgency to topple the US Govt. which has the strongest military in the world for your "right" to have an assault rifle which is designed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time from relatively long distances (for a skilled marksman, which fortunately, most of you are not), far different from a handgun.

And in your fever, you still believe the American Revolution fighting a British military that had to transport their troops and supplies across the Atlantic in fucking sailing ships, to be equivalent to fighting against the most powerful military in the world in 2021+ ON THEIR HOME TURF!

Although they would at least be a better analogy but still wouldn't work, use Mao's, Castro's or the Bolsheviks' revolutions. Hell, even the French revolution is more appropriate. Christ, you likely haven't even read Mao's treatise, "Guerilla Warfare."

Idk why you keep getting confused thinking I'm a bong. Is it because I sometimes use 3+ syllable words? Tbf, I have read a fair amount of *gasp* British Literature.
>>
>>767009
>Thanks for demonstrating you have no answers to the issues I raised. Saying, "Mommy, I ain't giving up my play toy"
Guns are not toys, if you think they are toys please never own one.
>to a city or State is far different than saying it to the US Govt. And as I said before which you have not contradicted, there are very few willing to participate in a protracted insurgency to topple the US Govt. which has the strongest military in the world
Pretty sure fags said the same thing to George Washington about the british
>"right" to have an assault rifle
define "assault rifle"
>which is designed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time
what do you think handguns are designed to do?
> (for a skilled marksman, which fortunately, most of you are not),
You have no data to backup that assertion.
> far different from a handgun.
Which is why most mass shootings are done with handguns?
>And in your fever, you still believe the American Revolution fighting a British military that had to transport their troops and supplies across the Atlantic in fucking sailing ships, to be equivalent to fighting against the most powerful military in the world in 2021+ ON THEIR HOME TURF!
And you seem kinda silly thinking most of the rank and file troops would be a ok with bombing their parents.
>Although they would at least be a better analogy but still wouldn't work, use Mao's, Castro's or the Bolsheviks' revolutions. Hell, even the French revolution is more appropriate. Christ, you likely haven't even read Mao's treatise, "Guerilla Warfare."
So now you are saying the people could easily rise up? Cool.
>Idk why you keep getting confused thinking I'm a bong. Is it because I sometimes use 3+ syllable words? Tbf, I have read a fair amount of *gasp* British Literature.
One of you 2 fags ITT is a bong. The one who used the word loonies and constabulary. I'm pretty sure I called the other fag a bong and have only called you a faggot
>>
>>767027
Those revolutions that I listed as being slightly better analogies but still wouldn't work, were motivated by the vast majority of people lacking bread, not a handful of people crying because mommy told them they can't have firesticks whose sole purpose is to kill large numbers of people, rapidly.
>>
>>767003
Wrong and you still won't even answer me. Why do you start all these threads when you can't even back up what you say?
>>
>>767027
How is a anything here meant to make random people owning any guns they like sound like a good idea?
>>
>>767061
Yea, it isn't like some anti gunners also shut down everyone jobs or anything to fuck over Trump.
>>767063
Come back when you are American
>>767065
I really don't care what you yuros think sounds like a good idea or not
>>
>>766921
>Also I hope you don't die in a fire fight. I want peace, that's the whole point.
then why do you support sending people with guns to take my property?
>>
Countries like Israel and Switzerland with citizen army and military grade firearms in every household are among the safest places in the world their democracy also safe as ever
>>
>>767085
I'm already American you stupid fuck. It's cute how hard you're trying to deflect from me proving you're just a violent piece of shit. Funny how quickly you change the subject.

>>767091
I think we need common sense laws that regulate guns to those who are trained and liscenced to own them. So if you're a veteran in good standing, you've had a positive psych review then you're certainly the kind of person who should be allowed to own an AR15 given that it's also liscenced and registered to you. I'm not against that. I'm against anyone being able to own as many of them as they want with no accountability. I don't see how this is confusing or should even be an issue for anyone in good mental health.
>>
>>767139
>you've had a positive psych review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

>I don't see how this is confusing or should even be an issue for anyone in good mental health
ah yes, the any one that disagrees with my opinion is mentally ill approached, I if this could possibly discourage anyone from seeking treatment for mental illness.
>>
>>767139
>I'm already American you stupid fuck. It's cute how hard you're trying to deflect from me proving you're just a violent piece of shit. Funny how quickly you change the subject.
Pretty sure you aren't based on the way you write faggot
> common sense laws
define this
> that regulate guns to those who are trained
fatal gun accidents are at an all time low and falling
>and licensed to own them.
licensing a basic human right that is guaranteed by the constitution is literally disgusting and will just be used for confiscation
>So if you're a veteran in good standing,
Heller already ruled the right to keep and bear arms is not related to being in any military or militia
>you've had a positive psych review
Who does the "psych review" also this shit violates section 504, the 14th amendment, and the ADA
> then you're certainly the kind of person who should be allowed to own an AR15
Do you realize AR-15s were almost never, ever used in crimes?
> given that it's also liscenced and registered to you.
So you want forced confiscation? Because that is what a licence and registration is for and why gun registries are banned by the FOPA. Also why the fuck do you keep spelling licenced with an S?
>I'm not against that.
No one cares
>I'm against anyone being able to own as many of them as they want with no accountability.
Why?
>I don't see how this is confusing or should even be an issue for anyone in good mental health.
Because it is disgusting and violates the 2nd amendment, 14th amendment, section 504, the ADA, and likely multiple other laws
>>
>>766994
>Profiting off weapons of war in times of strife is almost worse lol. Even more reason for scrutiny of those who collect firearms.
Who said anything about war? I'm saying if an AWB passes, you hold onto these 50 AR-15s and don't tell the government about them. Don't register anything. Then you wait 4 to 8 years until someone pro-gun is elected who allows the sale and voila - you've just made enough money to pay for your kid's college in one move.
>>
>>767139
>I think we need common sense laws that regulate guns to those who are trained and liscenced to own them.
That might sound good on paper but the practical application of that is a failure. Look at New Jersey or Rhode Island. They aren't any safer but it definitely made things harder for law abiding people to get guns. Especially after Corona hit - states that already had a backlog of getting licenses out, like Illinois that was backed up almost a year pre-corona for a process they swore wouldn't take longer than 30 days, were completely unable to issue new licenses to people when they needed them most.

Not that any of this matters because it's not about common sense laws. It's about restriction. Here's a perfect example: do you think that people with a concealed carry license should be able to carry into gun free zones? Now depending on which study you use, concealed carriers are 5 to 7 times less likely to commit a crime than your average citizen. It varies by state but normally you take an 8 hour course on what you can and can't do, demonstrate that you can handle the firearm at a range, and you have to get your fingerprints taken and wait on an FBI background check. CCWs are under more scrutiny for law violations so there are less fuck ups. Now to me common sense would say that these people can already be trusted to carry into a supermarket or a movie theater, so why can't they be trusted to carry on a school or college campus where they're needed most?

But every time a shooting happens the answer is always more gun free zones and anyone trying to offer allowing CCWs is met with the strawman of LETS JUST GIVE KIDS AKS AND BODY ARMOR LOLOLOLOL!

Hell we don't even trust our own soldiers to carry guns on base, and then you wonder why troops joke that Ft. Hood reminds people of Columbine.
>>
>>764020
The GOP did absolutely nothing as the white population dwindles. This is the only way.
>>
>>767009
Whoever is writing your script is doing a terrible job. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the citizens to sufficiently armed to act as a check to a tyrannical govt. Every main stream news outlet has described the current president as an authoritarian/tyrant. Why anyone would make the argument now that we need to make Americans as defenseless as possible against a tyrannical govt makes zero sense. At a minimum, this means allowing Americans access to AR-15's and equivalent semi-automatic rifles. If you want evidence of successful insurgencies, look at Iraq and Afghanistan or did you forget that we've always been at war with Oceania? There are literally tens of millions of these rifles already in the country that you can't legislate away and examples of non-compliance have already been posted here. You have 5 million new gun owners who stand to become felons overnight if an AWB or magazine capacity limit is enacted.
>>
>>767139
Following up on that concealed carry example I just used, because I just had a thought: we keep hearing about how you need a license to drive a car so you should need a license to own a gun, right? Well okay besides the fact that one's a right and the other is a privilege, I can get a license as young as 16 and drive in all 50 states where I'm far more likely to kill someone. On the other hand I have to wait until I'm 21 to purchase a handgun, plus a few months for the concealed carry process... but I can't carry in all 50 states. How does that make any sense? I've gone through the training, I've gone through the background check, I am statistically 7 times less likely to commit a crime than the average joe, but I can't carry in California or New York because I'm not trustworthy... but the 16 year old jackass teenager trying to impress his friends with a 3,500 pound missile doing 70 in a 35, that's cool.

Again, it's not about the license. It's about restriction.
>>
>>767557
I write my own scripts. As I stated before, I know nothing about Bloomberg gun control position or his "Mom's..." brigade, so fuck off. As I also previously stated, my arguments pointing out the realities of running a protracted insurgency based on a tiny fraction of the population having to give up their assault rifles and accoutrements against the most powerful military in the world protecting their govt. on their OWN HOME TURF, which no one even marginally addressed, I have not seen presented before. Again, fuck right off.

Your point about how Progressives should not support responsible gun regulation, beginning with a mandatory assault rifle buy back because it will prevent the overthrow of the US Government by tyrants like that which occured on 1/6 by a sitting President, is at best specious, but really disingenuous.

The specious: The reality is, the coalition of Brown Shirt wannabes comprised of a tiny minority of the US population, and cobbled together from deluded gun nuts, white nationalists/supremacists, and Q loonys (with overlap between the groups) are the ones with arsenals of the assault weapons who want to overthrow the US Government and are best quickly smashed and spattered to goo by the US Military.

The disenguous: Again, promoting the fictional narrative that an insurgency against the US Government supported by the Military in 2021+ on it's own soil on the basis of confiscation of assault weapons. Attempting to make it equivalent to Afghanistan is downright silly. The only really successful insurrections and overthrows of major military powers and govts. on their own soil has been based on lack of bread, period!
>>
>>767602
>I write my own scripts.
You should get better ones
> I know nothing about Bloomberg gun control position or his "Mom's..." brigade, so fuck off.
The news is that poor in china?
>As I also previously stated, my arguments pointing out the realities of running a protracted insurgency based on a tiny fraction of the population
1/3rds of the population is tiny?
>assault rifles
define this
>s and accoutrements against the most powerful military in the world protecting their govt. on their OWN HOME TURF, which no one even marginally addressed, I have not seen presented before. Again, fuck right off.
It would be the insurgent's home turf too and do you think the American military is going to glass their own cities?
>responsible gun regulation,
define this
> beginning with a mandatory assault rifle buy back
How does the government buy something back that they never sold? Also no one is going to comply and how do you enforce it when you have no registry?
> by tyrants like that which occured on 1/6 by a sitting President, is at best specious, but really disingenuous.
Tyrants have Ds next to their name dude
>The reality is, the coalition of Brown Shirt wannabes comprised of a tiny minority of the US population,
Yes, very few people are in antifa
> arsenals
define this
>assault weapons
define this
>are best quickly smashed and spattered to goo by the US Military.
Why would the military kill themselves?
>The disenguous: Again, promoting the fictional narrative that an insurgency against the US Government supported by the Military in 2021+
Why do you think the military would support the government?
>own soil
It's the people's soil too
>basis of confiscation of assault weapons.
So you expect the army to go door to door?
> on their own soil has been based on lack of bread, period!
The American revolution was based on the british trying to confiscate guns
>>
>>767602
>I know nothing about Bloomberg gun control position or his "Mom's..." brigade, so fuck off.

tl;dr Bloomberg drops billions of dollars on anti-gun groups, buying congressmen, and buying entire states to push gun control. The NRA doesn't have a tenth of the leverage that Bloomberg does.
>muh gun lobby
>>
>>767714
>>768437
>Everytown for Gun Safety, a group co-founded by presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg, raises its most money ever in 2018.
>A source says Bloomberg donated $38 million as part of Everytown's combined $106 million haul last year. The total represents nearly double what it raises in 2017.
>The NRA, by comparison, raises more than $350 million last year, although its revenue growth is at a slower 12%.
$144 million (only $38 million donated by Bloomberg) compared to $350 million by the NRA.
>Ohhhh, no, no, no! Not muh facts!
You NRA zombie pawns are pathetic. Now start your gaslighting engines, gentlemen!

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/26/bloomberg-vs-nra-huge-donation-lifts-gun-safety-groups-revenue.html
>>
>>764020

All the shills think their NPC chatter rings authentic.

Everyone knows the deal. Democrats cannot tolerate free elections. Why, because they lose those? This election theft means the social compact between the government and the citizens has been broken. This means the federal government is not longer legitimate.
Make your plans, and act accordingly.
>>
>>768545
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/mike-bloombergs-gun-control-outspends-nra-helps-democrats-win-virginia.html
>>
>>768545
please stop lying shill
https://kuow.org/stories/bloomberg-signs-one-big-check-and-outspends-nra-eightfold-wa/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-control-fund-raising.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/mike-bloombergs-gun-control-outspends-nra-helps-democrats-win-virginia.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/bloomberg-guns.html
>>
>>764480
Honestly this might help us.
Who are the people that are driving the gun control narrative in the Dem party? White women who have lost the ability to make opinions and decisions based on reason, and zogbots like Soros and Bloomberg. However gun culture is VERY large in black and Hispanic communities. If we could convince them to show interest in opposing gun control in their party we might be able to remove antigun agenda from the Dem party platform. Money is power, but votes get the job done.
>>
>>764928
Is it really that surprising? Democracy, especially in a two party system, is a joke. Its the current majority using their political power to reward themselves (gibs and tax cuts) and punish their political opponents (abortion band and gun control). Its the highest form of satire, it takes itself seriously.
>>
>>768923
Hispanics might. Blacks don't think for themselves though. A democrat could run on literally gelding all blacks and they would still get 95% of the black vote, see the blacks voting for Harris and Biden
>>
>>768545
Is this nigger serious? Bloomberg, the guy who promised to spend 2 billion to make sure Trump didn't win, doesn't outspend the NRA on gun control shit?
>>
>>768741
>>768741
>gun control groups, backed by Bloomberg, outspent NRA in one State, VA, the literal HQ of the NRA
>VA voters elect candidates demanding reasonable and responsible gun legislation
Yep! 2 reasons: 1) The fat and happy NRA leadership grew complacent underestimating the will of the American people to come out against the needless slaughter perpetuated by policies of uncompromising gun nuts, pawns of that self same leadership, even in a State they thought they owned lock stock and barrel. 2) The fat and happy leadership of the NRA got their hands caught in the cookie jar robbing their treasury for their private use, literally playing their own members for stooges and tools. They were in such disarray at that point they couldn't tell if it were night or day, let alone fund a propaganda campaign advocating the senseless slaughter of innocent people because responsible gun regulation is muh gombunism!
>>
>>769117
>the American people to come out
It was literally just NOVA, the entire rest of the state is pro gun. Only the literal subhumans in nova voted for gov blackface.
>needless slaughter perpetuated by policies of uncompromising gun nuts,
The vast majority of gun murders are done by democrats, not pro gun voters.
> lock stock and barrel.
fuck off brit bong
>>
>>769122
>lock, stock and barrel
>sounds hi falutin', must be a bong
The fuck?
>>
>>769117
>against the needless slaughter perpetuated by policies of uncompromising gun nuts
Stopped reading there.
>>
>>769147
There is an anti gun faggot ITT who consistently uses bong slang and idioms
>>
>>769117
>uncompromising gun nuts
Compromise
NOUN

1. an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

So what concessions has your side made? We have so many feel-good laws that do nothing to stop crime and only make things harder for legally owning firearms that our own government can't keep track of all the laws that exist. Gun owners are the only people giving any ground, what are you giving up in return? Don't call it a compromise if it's one-sided.
>>
>>767557
>If you want evidence of successful insurgencies, look at Iraq and Afghanistan
Eh, Afghanistan's couldn't have done anything against Russia's hardware without our assistance, and their insurgency against us has been anything but successful. As for Iraq's insurrection, there was none, despite every other aristocrat having heavily armed and experienced militias, and all the economic pain and death the populous was experiencing. We ousted their government for them, and what resistance there has been to the one we installed has been inconsequential.

Even without guns, we could resist their rule - as this little insurrection demonstrated - don't even have to go to DC, all we'd really have to do is refuse to work. We just don't want to, as most of know what the consequences would be to burning down the nation.
>>
>>769261
>there is no reason for armed resistance
>the holocaust totally never happened dudes turn in your guns
>>
>>769266
Either that, or I'm saying you need SAM's and LAW's, and your AR-15's aren't good for anything but home invasions.

But more importantly, you need the will of the people - without that, no amount of guns is going to help, and with it, you don't even need the guns.
>>
>>769282
>Either that, or I'm saying you need SAM's and LAW's,
not even
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-software-drones-hacked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW0upku1HIQ
>But more importantly, you need the will of the people - without that, no amount of guns is going to help, and with it, you don't even need the guns.
"the holocaust isn't real and the The Bielski Partisans never happened"
>>
>>764079
It is the right that prevents the others from being taken. An inability to understand this makes you less than human.
>>
>>764005
I couldn't care less either way to be honest.
>>
>>764032
That's ATF Field Agent Chang "Dogeater" Chong, to you mister. Don't let me turn your mutts to dinner
>>
>>764005
>>764052
>the majority does not have the right to deny the minority their basic human rights
...that don't exist outside America. OK Cletus
>>
>>764980
I guess that leaves 300,000 dead squarely on Republican hands then. Over 4 times as much. Those guys can't get booted out fast enough
>>
>>764109
Long as its hate speech, hey-o!
>>
>>764111
Originalists are hypocrites. They say they rely so much on the pure written word of the Constitution, and yet they fail to realize the Constitution doesn't cover shit or go in detail most often. The 2nd guarantees the right to bear arms, but the first Article of the Constitution guarantees Congress legislative powers, which allows them to enact laws to specify which arms you can bear. Take note the 2nd amendment never said what counts as arms, nor did they specify which you can bear. Congress shall.

Originalists should stick to what is truly written to the Constitution, and put up with the current legal environment with no issue. After all, that's what the Constitution allows.
>>
>>764130
Rights universal to all humans today. Not rights determined by 47 humans centuries ago.
>>
>>764160
All those reloads certainly do slow shooters down. And if you had cracked down sooner on guns maybe criminals wouldn't have easy access to them anyhow. More guns than people in your place, whats stopping a few hundred thousand from being in the hands of crooks? Only because you don't do anything to mitigate this at all. Reap what you (don't) sow
>>
>>764168
Weird how you don't realize the Constitution is severely limited for modern society today and that reading strictly and solely from it is stupid and shortsighted.
>>
>>764173
Because absolutes do not and should not exist, especially in this world. No less legal absolutes. The rule of law emerged and took root in American society specifically to prevent absolute freedom (anarchy) from tearing America apart from within. No rights are absolute, nor should they be.
>>
>>764171
And why are your peashooters somehow a suitable foil to the filthy rich? I think ballots are more damaging than bullets ever could be.
>>
>>764250
Without advances in materials science or machining, guns like these will forever be crude. Not so much banning the blueprints but hoping the product doesn't blow your torso off. You can bet the government would be regulating any advanced materials that could improve ghost gun manufacture, if the makers can afford it first.
>>
>>764290
How about implementing martial law and hunting your kind down? Fair's fair kid
>>
>>764457
More funny less fashy, bitch
>>
>>764849
>How many nonregistered but NFA-liable weapons have been used in a crime, idiot?
Hard to tell without a registry, or enforcement hm?
>Glocks aren't used more in crime than AKs because they're cheaper, they're used more in crime than AK's because it's easier to hide a Glock in your gym shorts.
And if AK's were cheap and plentiful as Glocks, they'd switch to sweatpants.
>Do you know what a sawed off shotgun is and how to make one?
Definitely know its not full auto
>go pretend registration isn't regularly used as a tool of confiscation in any other country it's ever been implemented in somewhere else
The more tantrums you throw the more "human rights" you lose. Be glad they're not already gone.
>>
>>764928
When soneone undergoes an illegal abortion the risk is to themselves. When someone undergoes a black market buy of firearms, the risk is to others, at least, depending on what they use the buy for. We don't have to accept that risk.
>>
>>764986
>The reason behind the current registry for NFA items is to make it so they would be easier to confiscate in the future.
...or register guns? Gun grabs can still happen without registries; just a no-knock will do.
>That has nothing to do with them "being registered" and everything to do with machine guns being expensive as fuck
And what do you think is responsible for their cost...?
>AKs were as cheap as glocks for years, just not the full auto ones. The issue is full auto isn't needed for crimes and you can't CC a rifle as well as a hand gun.
And beyond CC crimes, long guns still outperform handguns any day. More bang for buck
>lightning links are readily available
And readily regulated by the NFA still
>People don't straw purchase NFA items because if you are going to do that crime you might as well illegally manufacture and SBS.
And how much do?
>Having a registry does literally ZERO to stop crimes. The issue is concealability and price and full auto not being needed for crimes. Criminals saw off shotguns and rifles all the time.
A registry is not the only factor limiting crimes. Tax stamps, waiting periods, background checks all play a role that lists don't. The more hoops a crook jumps through the better.
>>
>>764990
>Murders and gang activity don't require 30 round mags and rifle rounds. Look at any city or state's guns used in crimes. .22lr and revolvers are over represented because executing someone at point blank isn't that hard and because they are available (and revolvers are popular because criminals see them as being higher power and not dropping rounds on the ground).
Guess we ought regulate those too. Popular for all the reasons you said, and that has to end.

>Most stats on defensive shootings show that fewer than 5 rounds are fired by the defender.
So what you're saying is carrying a gun for self defense is useless? Its almost like packing heat isn't the only factor in the equation during a mugging or a hit (think of shock and awe)
>>
>>769404
>A registry is not the only factor limiting crimes. Tax stamps, waiting periods, background checks all play a role that lists don't. The more hoops a crook jumps through the better.
Not that same anon, but what the fuck? You really think tax stamps are stopping people in Chicago from sawing off a shotgun or gangs in Florida from putting a stock on a pistol AK? They aren't dealing with waiting periods, but the abused girlfriend who needs a gun to protect herself from a stalker ex is sweating like a motherfucker (on an unrelated note: thanks a lot Journal News for posting the names and addresses on an interactive map of gun license holders in two NY counties. I'm sure that really helped protect women hiding from abusive partners).

>The more hoops a crook jumps through the better.
This is what you people do not ever fucking understand. The only people stupid enough to be jumping through these hoops are law-abiding citizens. Criminals DO NOT get their guns from gun store or even "gun show loopholes" that you're so worried about. These hoops only make it harder for non-criminals.
>>
>>764991
>Rich people don't commit violent crimes, more news at 100.
If paying off tax stamps is for the rich, I'd hate to see your poor
>The NFA was made to prevent anyone who wasn't rich from owning guns.
Found him! If you're that poor, you're better off buying beans for dinner, unless you're planning on eating bullets to escape your own destitute hell. If you can guarantee me that, I'd lobby for an exception to the NFA in your favor (and society's favor too).
>>
>>765118
Do you own pets by any chance, anon?
>>
>>765791
>We will do everything in our power to make gun control as painful and time consuming for you commies as possible.
By all means. Your taxes and especially your tears give us purpose. And dogs to shoot.
>Come and take it. I will sooner tear the nation asunder than surrender my arms
I will sooner tear your anus asunder while you surrender your supple, silky arms to my burly but tender embrace... Come hither

>what part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you to understand?
What part of "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" is hard for you to understand?

What part of "Your right to bear arms is not infringed by Congress' right to determine what arms you may bear. The Big C did not say "any and all arms"" is hard for you to understand?
>>
>>765833
Do you happen to have land in Waco, Texas, by any chance?
>>
>>765858
>Are you going to send cops door to door to search with no warrant?
My little red flag tells me otherwise. God bless concerned neighbors and low fences
>>
>>766505
>link dump
I'm surprised you got access to every suspects voting history to figure out they leaned Blue. Thats a crime you know

>The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly a basic human right and that is why it is protected in the constitution.
The right to decide what arms you may bear by Congress is protected by the Constitution too. Its called Article 1.

Stay mad Cletus. Hide your pets
>>
>>766507
>Reee other people are pussies because they aren't afraid of guns and are willing to stand up for their rights and beliefs"
You're the one hiding behind a gun, son. I hide behind crevices and air ducts in the ceiling.

>>766515
>Where does it say that in the constitution faggot?
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I'm not surprised you glossed over that part on your way to flipping to the 2nd

>Because I can show you where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I can also show you how it is such an important right it was listed second, only after freedom of expression and religion.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" came first and foremost before your precious 2nd amendment. I'm sure you can count up to 2, though beyond is another question.

Now, focus on what the 2nd *didn't* say as opposed to what it did. Too bad (for you) Congress is filling in the blanks the Fathers left.
>>
>>766518
>And regardless, the majority does not have the right to deny the minority their basic human rights.
The minority has even less rights to deny the majority their basic human rights too. This is a republic, not a monarchy.
>come and take it, bitch boy.
Yes ma'am
>you are delusional if you think gun control will be obeyed
Dont send state police to do a federal agency's job. Send a spook with NVG's and a baton
>There are over 400,000,000 guns in private hands in the USA and you have no way to track them. The LEOs won't enforce it and with 3d printers, the genie is already out of the bottle
400 million guns to grab then. Hell some of those guns are ours. And 3D printed IEDs are a self-solving problem.
>>
>>766567
>400 billion guns
Is this the new gorillion?

>>766700
>You should tell that to Ho Chi Minh
...who had military support from two allied superpowers, fought in his own backyard halfway across from America, and had state powers at his disposal? And was also way smarter than the average American, with a legion of diehard (not diabetic) fighters under his command? I'm sorry to say this, but Vietnam was fought in Vietnam, not the US of A. Get spooked.
>>
>>766731
>We have the courts cuck.
We have precedents, fuck.
>Jeff and King
One has a moral responsibility to arrest disobedient criminals. Which King went through.
>illegal
Ignoring state registries, sure
>No one in the usa will comply with this shit
Forced to, then

>>766750
>Illiterate rice farming manlets sis a successful insurgency and you expect 100,000,000 gun owners to be less successful?
Considering they had constant supplies of heavy weapons and munitions from a logistical equivalent of a 10 lane highway, Russian/Chicom trainers and training, fought in their own backyard against enemies outside theirs, with the guidance of brilliant military strategists and the powers of state - yeah, they'll have a hard time against us. We have all that and more. Submit, citizen. You're a long way from the jungle, boy.
>>
>>766817
Meh, I get your point, though I do appreciate having guys like this around.

I just wish they were less retarded when they are vocal, as they tend to make the guys who are actually defending the 2nd amendment's job a whole lot harder.

Single issue voters like this are machines who only know how to attack and defend - they don't know how to win hearts, nor do they care to. They just want to emotionally dominate everyone, because they want obedient slaves who will defend their one issue - and accuse everyone else of that in their projection.

Be they pro/anti-abortion voters, anti/pro-gun voters, isolationist voters, climate change voters, open boarder voters, or SJWs, they all do far more harm to their causes than they do to aid them. Make the majority feel constantly attacked, and eventually, they will silence you.

Only those who can make their case inclusive, instead of exclusive, ever manage to create real change - the rest are actually working, really really hard, against their goals.
>>
“Guns don't kill people, people kill people” is correct but never a reason/excuse not to control guns. Because guns are always used by people especially those who love guns,
and gun control is practically the control of gun (ab)users. This is also true for the regulation of all other implements. Don’t give immature people dangerous things

"Emotions Self-Responsibility Theory"
>>
>>764005
>muh guns
Burgers are fkin insane
>>
>>766817
> THIS, unironically, is the essence of Orwellian thought - the concept of training someone to not simply survive underneath the crushing boot of Big Brother but to actively love and celebrate it.
I hope you see the irony here when you are carrying the line that people shouldn't worry so much about keeping their guns because some people are struggling. Some people would rather be a struggling free man than a comfortable slave, and while I'm not suggesting that's the dichotomy being selected between in modern politics, I am suggesting that many will not sacrifice the greatest possible access to the means to fight if and when things get bad in exchange for marginally better access to comforts in the mean time. You suggest dems only performatively rally against guns, I say the opposite, and that if anyone is strictly performative it is republicans in their defense of them. Not everyone who would rapidly defend gun ownership in this country trusts or votes for the republican party, or even believes in social or economic conservatism. But so long as the establishment continues to reflect the desire to see the people disarmed, and so long as politicians, voters, and establishment dogs continue to signal their willingness to make it so, those who support gun ownership will continue to speak out, or, failing that, seek to separate themselves from the system.
>>
>>769462
"Crazy people shouldn't have guns", is indeed a more inclusive approach.

But it's worth pointing out, that crazy gun enthusiasts, aren't the ones doing most of the shootings. We just get a really spectacular one, once in a blue moon, that scares the shit out of everyone. Meanwhile, the deaths caused by the shootings that happen every day outnumber those by so many magnitudes, that they aren't even worth reporting about. People just go numb to that shit - statistics do not sell, so you'll be lucky to see it even on the local news, even as a blip in the obituaries, and never the national news. The spectacle of a mad mass shooter, on the other hand, sells like hotcakes.

Even then, most of the time, most of the guns they've acquired, are not regulation, and were not legally acquired.

So for either the imagined problem or the real problem, gun control isn't particularly effective a solution in this country, even if it seems to work well in others. ...and the political argument tends to simply galvanize people into ignoring other issues that can be addressed, as well as other, more effective, solutions to this same issue. It's only brought to the forefront because its divisive, and the desperation that divisiveness generates is what makes the two parties so powerful.
>>
>>769466
Okay, change.
>>
>>767027
>Guns are not toys, if you think they are toys please never own one.
You seem to think of them as much too. If you're not shooting up schools for kicks, what are you using your guns for? And how will gun control stop you from doing just that?
>Pretty sure fags said the same thing to George Washington about the british
And now the "Redcoats" you're facing up against have nuclear weapons, and everything before it on the sliding scale of death. No Napoleon to distract them.
>define "assault rifle"
>An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
>what do you think handguns are designed to do?
Kill? Much? Quickly?
>Which is why most mass shootings are done with handguns?
Regulate them too?
>And you seem kinda silly thinking most of the rank and file troops would be a ok with bombing their parents.
Bombs are overkill if you're planning on occupying the land. Snipers, grenades, and CQB is perfectly fine. Unless Gramps here is part of the rebels, he'd have been taken far away from any action long ago.
>So now you are saying the people could easily rise up? Cool
In a domestic war against the biggest superpower on Earth? Good luck rising out of bed. If you do, you'll be put to bed soon enough.
>>
>>767152
>USSR = USA
it all makes sense now
>>
>>767157
>fatal gun accidents are at an all time low and falling
And intentional gun homicides are on the rise
>licensing a basic human right that is guaranteed by the constitution is literally disgusting and will just be used for confiscation
The Constitution said nothing towards licenses. It passes
>Heller already ruled the right to keep and bear arms is not related to being in any military or militia
Missing the point
>Who does the "psych review" also this shit violates section 504, the 14th amendment, and the ADA
504 applies to agencies and programs and prohibits the mentally deficient from being barred because of it. Even tards like you can participate in gun buybacks, no problem! The 14th concerns citizenship and equality, not guns. The ADA permits discrimination under the direct threat clause, of which arms constitute and contribute to. Name drop better.
>Because that is what a licence and registration is for and why gun registries are banned by the FOPA
Ironically FOPA allows discrimination against the mentally defective. All registries need is a New York Treatment
>Why?
Because they can be stocking up for war, arms dealing, etc. Don't want that
>>
>>767234
>Here's a perfect example: do you think that people with a concealed carry license should be able to carry into gun free zones?
It's gun free for a reason.
>Now depending on which study you use, concealed carriers are 5 to 7 times less likely to commit a crime than your average citizen.
If no guns are allowed in gun free zones, gun violence is 100% impossible. Can't beat those odds.
>Now to me common sense would say that these people can already be trusted to carry into a supermarket or a movie theater, so why can't they be trusted to carry on a school or college campus where they're needed most?
Trust is secondary to verification. If you can guarantee the lack of weapons on premises, trustworthiness goes out the window. And if they're not already entrusted with a police badge, what need is there for gun owners like them, no less trust for them?

>But every time a shooting happens the answer is always more gun free zones and anyone trying to offer allowing CCWs is met with the strawman of LETS JUST GIVE KIDS AKS AND BODY ARMOR LOLOLOLOL!
Less guns, less gun violence. Simple. You are trying to add more guns, like more fuel to a fire. You now kickstart an arms race in a place that should never be host to one at all. Big arms, then bigger armor - it never ends, though it should.
>Ft. Hood
Which is why you trust MPs to carry guns instead. If the brass had actually enforced the "no arms on base" rule the shooter would have never gotten far at all. Alas...
>>
>>769548
Gotta take into account that no gun enforcement is going to be 100%, as well as how effective it can hope to be in any given application, and that there's rarely a way to stop a man, who is willing to exchange his life for his target's.

That, and things like most conflicts involving firearms are resolved without ever firing a shot, thus more often, guns prevent violence than they cause it. So don't do stupid shit, like make laws against brandishing in self-defense, where you're more apt to get off free if you shoot the guy, as some states have done.
>>
>>769548
You're really working for that $0.50 today. Tell me again how exactly a sign that says "gun-free zone" guarantees that no weapons enter the building?
>>
>>769548
>>769536
>>769482
>>769456
>>769451
>>769445
>>769443
>>769438
>>769433
>>769431
>>769418
>>769411
Damn. Chang's working overtime.
>>
>>769548
>Which is why you trust MPs to carry guns instead. If the brass had actually enforced the "no arms on base" rule the shooter would have never gotten far at all. Alas...
Holy kek, I can tell you've never been on a military base in your life. Your autism fueled 20 posts is pretty funny, but this takes the cake.
>>
>>769553
>>769554
Chang, does not give a shit how well armed our citizens are. They just want to laugh at us while saying how much better their utopia is - as do a lot of nations.

Won't ever see them caring either, as if we get to the point where they can buy us out, and use us for cheap labor for parts and extracting resources - instead of the other way around - their economy will be dead too.
>>
>>769553
>>769554
>>769556
Good to see the NRA here today. How's Wayne?
>>
>>769557
If anything, Chang wants us more armed, so we'll be more apt to destabilize, and become more dependent on them. But not TOO destabilized, lest we are no longer a good business venture, or start tossing nukes about.
>>
>>769559
I haven't given the NRA a penny. Please keep using them as your boogeyman while other groups actually work to protect the second amendment.
>>
>>769562
Just because you do it for free doesn't mean you aren't trying.
>>
Just like freedom of speech, guns are overrated and for pussies.
>>
>>769571
Hi Chang. How's the smog today?
>>
>>769574
Pretty good Boris. How cold is it in St. Petersburg?
>>
>>769536
>The Constitution said nothing towards licenses. It passes
The constitution says it shall not be infringed, that is why no state is allowed to have a license for owning guns
>>
>>769577
Nyet, is Ivan. Boris sleep.
>>
>>769564
Hard to get on the shill dole, how'd you manage it?
>>
>>764020
You ready for a nationwide rerun of the Second Amendment Sanctuaries that happened in Virginia?
>>
>>769536
>Ironically FOPA allows discrimination against the mentally defective. All registries need is a New York Treatment
Citation needed
>504 applies to agencies and programs and prohibits the mentally deficient from being barred because of it.
Prevents the feds from discriminating based on disability
>The 14th concerns citizenship and equality, not guns.
It also says that the government cannot discriminate on people's rights and that states need to obey the bill of rights
>The ADA permits discrimination under the direct threat clause, of which arms constitute and contribute to.
Citation needed
>Name drop better.
Chang you literally didn't know about brown v board of ed. Stop pretending you know us laws.
>>769443
>Now, focus on what the 2nd *didn't* say as opposed to what it did. Too bad (for you) Congress is filling in the blanks the Fathers left.
>>769438
>The right to decide what arms you may bear by Congress is protected by the Constitution too. Its called Article 1.
>>769418
>What part of "Your right to bear arms is not infringed by Congress' right to determine what arms you may bear. The Big C did not say "any and all arms"" is hard for you to understand?
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true chang. Granted you are literally the same fag who doesn't know what brown v board of ed was because you arent American. Which is why you shit post at 6 am
>>
>>764005
nice
>>
>>764052
>>with things like the daily show
Yeah, it definitely wasn't conservative talk radio in the 90s or the appeal to moral authority from 80s Christian right that started these inane 'party=ideology' shitflings. Fuck Bill o rielly was on the air before the daily show was ever popular. Colbert whole fucking bit for a decade was playing a faux version of Republican windbags you stupid ignorant fuck.
>>
>>769632
>denying that the Daily show was far more popular and culturally significant for the time
Underage detetected
>>
>>769632
Bro, learn how to write on at least a fourth grade level before trying to make your retarded statements.
>>
>>769747
Not him, but I know you can do better than a 4th grade response.
>>
>>769410
The NFA was absolutely created to keep poor people from owning guns. When it was enacted you could buy a shotgun or rifle for $20-30, if you wanted one with a short barrel that would be an additional $200. As originally written the NFA included handguns as well, so a $10 handgun would have had a 2000% tax on it.
Thankfully handguns were removed from the final draft of the bill because even then that was deemed blatantly unconstitutional. Handguns being in the original draft is also why short barreled rifles and shotguns where included as it was an attempt to prevent people from owning anything concealable, they just didnt bother to take SBR's and SBS's out when they took out handguns.
>>
>>769484
>>USSR = USA
>it all makes sense now
no, just pointing out an example where psychiatry has been used by the government to strip rights from the people.
>>
>>769548
>If no guns are allowed in gun free zones, gun violence is 100% impossible. Can't beat those odds.
Only if you ignore literally every school shooting and every mass shooting in a gun free zone.
>>
>>769550
>Gotta take into account that no gun enforcement is going to be 100%, as well as how effective it can hope to be in any given application, and that there's rarely a way to stop a man, who is willing to exchange his life for his target's.
That is true. But we can still do our best to minimize as much as possible the harm. Maybe when we collectively leave our violent ways behind for a higher way of living, will we abandon arms and arms controls at the same time. But not anytime soon it seems.

On a more concrete basis, however helpful psychotherapy and social outreach is to vulnerable people, it can't ever fully prevent them from taking up arms against others. What we can do, is "declaw the tiger", so that he may not maul others. We can calm him down later.

>That, and things like most conflicts involving firearms are resolved without ever firing a shot, thus more often, guns prevent violence than they cause it.
Thats a good thing, but considering the glut of gun violence in the States as is, it doesn't seem enough. Not all cops know how or even are themselves to deescalate. And I'm assuming cop encounters are a fraction of your mentioned conflicts alone, forget others.

>>769553
The signs just a sign. Its metal detectors, stationed guards, and tight security that prevent arms from getting in. Laws are one thing, enforcement is another. Thats why I'm here.

>>769554
Hey, boss gave me overtime, though I'd do it for free anyways (don't tell him). Gotta get those juicy taxpayer dollars.
>>
>>769556
It seems to me like there is less gun violence on most bases compared to the rest of America. Considering they're the most heavily armed fighting force of all, you'd expect them to take guns seriously, and it looks like they do. They're doing something right compared to the never-served.

>>769560
America has been going downhill since the late 60's. If it wasn't for the environmental destruction, unchecked capitalism, and forever wars, it would've been to your unfailing adherence to individualism to the point of selfishness. Guns are a symptom, not a cause of this.

Our high death toll to COVID-19 is due to, among other things, the defiance of individuals to accommodate the rest of society. You see shorter lockdowns and lower casualties in "collectivist" societies for this reason, because "fuck you, I've got mine" only goes so far elsewhere. This is why America will fall, because "American Individualism" is its Achilles heel. We can do better than this
>>
>>770093
>Our
I just want to remind everyone that chang here who is "totally American" and "an expert on the constitution and legal system" didnt know what brown v board of ed was or who Thurgood Marshall is. Meaning he either isn't American, or literally is a retard who went to school for retards.
>>
>>770094
Thanks for the heads up, Ivan.
>>
>>770095
>fucking implying I am a commie
>>
>>770093
Weapons on US Army bases State Side and what are considered non-combat zones (non DMZ Korea, Germany, etc.) are stored in carefully controlled armories (in a Battalion, it's at the Company level and the Company XO manages it). The only time live rounds would ever be issued is for range practise and that is a very tightly controlled activity. Weapons w/o live ammo are issued for training exercises. Exceptions would be MP's and specific kinds of guard duty. So you are correct, weapons on non-combat Army bases are very tightly controlled.
>>
>>769578
>The constitution says it shall not be infringed, that is why no state is allowed to have a license for owning guns
Off the top of my head, NYC has licenses, and maybe NJ. I don't see how owning licenses infringes on the 2nd, unless you have something to offer?

>>769595
>Citation needed
Read the "Clarification of Prohibited Persons"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
>Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution."
>Prevents the feds from discriminating based on disability
Where does it say that? It says that "programs or activities", by federal, or by federally funded public or private agencies cannot discriminate on/against disability. Laws aren't programs. 504 does not forbid the existence of disabilities as legally defined qualities to apply said laws to. The FOPA you mentioned permits discrimination on mental disability; such legal qualities can still exist, just as race, sex, gender, creed, etc can too.
>It also says that the government cannot discriminate on people's rights and that states need to obey the bill of rights
Citation needed.
>Citation needed.
https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08mark.htm
>Nothing in this subchapter shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The term "direct threat" means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.
>brown v board of ed.
Must be another Chang. We just reuse talking points over here.
>Repeating a lie doesn't make it true chang.
As for you Cletus. I don't need to repeat lies as I can quote facts. The continued existence of gun laws is proof of the pudding.
>>
>>769941
>When it was enacted you could buy a shotgun or rifle for $20-30
And I could buy a loaf of bread and some penny whistles for a nickel, Grampa. Correct for inflation. Ironically the $200 dollars was to prevent mobsters from getting Tommy guns, and yet nowadays its pocket change compared to the dollar value then. Consider it lucky that the $200 fee didn't rise too.
>Handguns being in the original draft is also why short barreled rifles and shotguns where included as it was an attempt to prevent people from owning anything concealable, they just didnt bother to take SBR's and SBS's out when they took out handguns.
Were SBR's and SBS's even legally defined then? Sawed off weapons are one thing, but SBR/S's are ready-made instead of having been converted to.

In any case, it seems that the money was only a instrument to restrict the spread of NFA covered weapons. It could have been any other factor beyond money being the limiting factor. If you could replace money with an equally valid factor, do you think the NFA will still stand? I think so.
>>
>>769942
The only difference is that shrinks are not beholden to the government, which I'm guessing wasn't the case in Mother Russia, huh?

>>770046
So its a lack of enforcement then? Again, the law is just a piece of paper - its up to us to fulfill it by any means necessary
And if packs of "lone wolves" can tear up schools and streets then we need to step up sooner.
Those guys have had enough blood on their hands as is.
>>
>>770126
>Off the top of my head, NYC has licenses,
NYC has been threatened about that by the SCOTUS
>and maybe NJ.
Nope, there is no requirement to have an FID to own a gun in NJ
> I don't see how owning licenses infringes on the 2nd, unless you have something to offer?
"the action of limiting or undermining something."
By making a licence that costs money and takes time to get it limits the ability of poors to get guns. The NJ fid system for purchasing guns is specifically set up to prevent blacks and poors from owning guns.
>Read the "Clarification of Prohibited Persons"
>Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution."
those require jury trials and for someone to have done a crime
>Where does it say that? It says that "programs or activities", by federal, or by federally funded public or private agencies cannot discriminate on/against disability. Laws aren't programs. 504 does not forbid the existence of disabilities as legally defined qualities to apply said laws to.
"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service."
FBI background checks and ATF are executive agencies.
>The FOPA you mentioned permits discrimination on mental disability;
It does not. It requires a jury trial. You don't know what adjudication or involuntary commitment mean. Both can only happen if someone did a crime.
>>
>>770087
>however helpful psychotherapy and social outreach is to vulnerable people
Well, as the louder guy would tell you, some of these red flag laws seem to be set up in such a way as to discourage gun owners (especially paranoid gun owners) from seeking psychiatric help they may need. I've not looked into the details, as that wasn't how the system worked, back in the day when I was in the field, but there's been more than enough jokers for that to have changed since then.

>Not all cops know how or even are themselves to deescalate. And I'm assuming cop encounters are a fraction of your mentioned conflicts alone, forget others.
~1000 folks killed in all of 2019 by police firearms, ~300 of which were black (out of ~40K firearm related deaths total). Not that more de-escalation training would be at all a bad thing. To be honest, I'd like the whole bit where officers protect themselves before innocent civilians, such as the shoot-center-mass policy, nerfed quite a bit - though you can go too far in the other direction. Can't protect nobody if yer dead. Main thing, really, is just to nail any bad apples to the wall, hard, and nix anyone who creates a PR situation where they even look like a bad apple, just with more honorable discharge. Need to at least LOOK like yer addressing the more exciting problems, even if they aren't the main issue - otherwise, yeah, riots and insurrection, in addition to making the real issues harder to deal with.

Though what we really need is some modern and expanded variant of the Equal Time and Fairness Doctrines, so if you make a story about a cop killing the wrong person the wrong way, you need to do at least 10 stories where someone is saved by the cops, in short order (that's been generous, as the ratio is likely closer 10,000 to 1). It's far too easy to make cash by painting a horrific picture of law enforcement, and the world in general.
>>
>>770126
>such legal qualities can still exist, just as race, sex, gender, creed, etc can too.
"As amended in 1974, Section 111, Pub L. 93-516, 88 Stat. 1619 (Dec. 7, 1974), Individuals with Disabilities are:

Any person who (a) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (b) has a record of such an impairment, or (c) is regarded as having such an impairment"
>Citation needed.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>Nothing in this subchapter shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The term "direct threat" means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.
That is referring to employment, not discrimination made by the state government and direct threat means they are physically incapable of doing the job in a safe manner, like employing someone who is blind to be a lifeguard
>Must be another Chang. We just reuse talking points over here.
If it is, you are using his literal and exact quotes and arguments word for word and reading off the same script.
>As for you Cletus. I don't need to repeat lies as I can quote facts. The continued existence of gun laws is proof of the pudding.
And see, this proves you are the same Chang and are trying to deflect because you don't know who Thurgood Marshall is.
>>
>>770093
>Our high death toll to COVID-19 is due to, among other things, the defiance of individuals to accommodate the rest of society. You see shorter lockdowns and lower casualties in "collectivist" societies for this reason, because "fuck you, I've got mine" only goes so far elsewhere. This is why America will fall, because "American Individualism" is its Achilles heel. We can do better than this
Meh, can't say I entirely disagree, clearly-not-Chinese-Chang, but individualism is, both for better and worse, core to the American ethos, and kinda baked into the constitution by design. While we could do better, for instance, by focusing on what it means to be a *real* man, defender and provider for all, the honor of self-sacrifice, etc. rather than simply an ambitious dick bag smashing things until he gets what he wants, and if he gets it, he deserves it, by default. Trump wasn't the ideal image of masculinity in this nation when it was founded - George Washington was, and those two paragons could not be more different. At some point, the Robber Barron became the ultimate American ideal. Perhaps the happy medium being in Ford, who was sued the crap out of for trying to do more for his workers by cutting into the company's profits, more than his shareholders were comfortable with, which gave us the SCOTUS decision that made all post-IPO American companies, basically evil by law.

Of course, the COVID problem in particular was accelerated by opportunistic politicization, and yeah, folks hate our government so much, that if it told everyone not to jump off a cliff, a lot of people would do so just to spite it. Core problem being, people care more about the messenger than the contents of the message.

But, even it'd save millions of lives, I would not want to live in a government like China's, that can do real lockdowns at will and weld people into their houses, in exchange for that. Think my limit comes at SKorea or Japan's brand of collectivism, and even that...
>>
>>770094
That's ATF Field Agent Chang "Dogeater" Chong, to you mister. I'll leave history to the historians, they leave the shooting to me.

>>770134
>NYC has been threatened about that by the SCOTUS
Its up in the air till they convene then. My bad for NJ
>"the action of limiting or undermining something."
Do you consider price tags on weapons to be infringatory? If cost is too much you can always bear sticks and stones. Licenses are equally "infringatory" as the cost of owning arms alone is, by your metric.
>The NJ fid system for purchasing guns is specifically set up to prevent blacks and poors from owning guns.
What makes you say this? I'd expect the gun to break their banks over the fees themselves.
>those require jury trials and for someone to have done a crime
>It does not. It requires a jury trial.
...yes? That's even better than without. I never said it was discrimination without reason or especially due process.
>FBI background checks and ATF are executive agencies.
Yeah, you are right, but not because of the fact that they're executive agencies. I misunderstood the definition of "programs and activities" to be solely participatory things, and that it excluded the enacting of law by executive agencies. You got me

I'm guessing the key statement in play considering the FOPA "Prohibited Persons" clause (for example), is "...otherwise qualified individual..." If 504 prohibits disability from being a disqualifying factor given a person's other valid qualifications, then the PP clause would forbid the mentally disabled from qualifying since there are no other qualifications at play. Otherwise I can't figure out how FOPA has passed in spite of it.
>>
>>770145
Not him, but
>Do you consider price tags on weapons to be infringatory?
If the price is artificially high because of fees designed to deter buying a gun, yes. Spending thousands on an H&K is just mall ninja.
>Licenses are equally "infringatory" as the cost of owning arms alone is
More so since they also have an effort requirement and expiration dates. Additionally, governments can purposefully under-fund testing sites/licensing bureaus to gatekeep.
Also, "infringatory" isn't even a word.
>>
>>770136
>some of these red flag laws... seeking psychiatric help they may need.
That is true, though I don't know myself how often this happens. Red flag laws seem targeted to those who are "obviously" at risk. Thing js, if a person is seeking help, that should only affirm his rights to own guns, since he is seeking help after all, unless you say otherwise...?

>I'd like the whole bit... in the other direction.
I agree. I still remember the UPS van shootout long ago. Nasty. Still, the fact that that happened, no less other incidents past and present, tell me nothing is getting done, despite calls and protests to the contrary. Old habits die hard. I don't expect PDs to change anytime soon, given their insular natures, to be frank.

>It's far too easy to make cash by painting a horrific picture of law enforcement, and the world in general.
You got a point there; "if it bleeds, it leads". But I wouldn't blame the media for doing so, only people for reading too much into news. It's assumed that all cops are at a certain expectation of professionalism, so seeing the latest incident of police brutality is proof against that - fodder for the media. I think of it as less of an attack, and more "constructive criticism". The media and the police alike are still fighting for a better world, though they differ in how they do so.

As much as I'd like to abandon the thought of painting all cops with the same broad brush though, they do all wear the same badge and uniform. All cops, good and bad alike, are representatives of the force. If a few bad apples are in the bunch, and have not been thrown out, they become the lowest common denominator, the weakest link.

We deserve more than to put up with bad cops in a good force, but again, the tight-knittedness makes it hard to weed them out. There's already a precedent amongst cops to back their own blue to no end, and I don't see that going away anytime soon.
>>
>>770145
Can you and other grabbers at least pretend to know the existing gun control laws before you spout off nonsense and troll this thread. NYC has an extremely restrictive licensing system that denies people carry permits. NJ doesn't issue them either. The fees only exist to deter gun ownership.

Imagine if we were to tax other freedoms protected by the constitution to discourage their use? We seem to have a fake news epidemic in this country. Time to limit who can report things. That will be $3500 for your reporting tax stamp.
>>
>>770137
>As amended in 1974, Section 111, Pub L. 93-516, 88 Stat. 1619 (Dec. 7, 1974)...
So how does this forbid FOPA from discriminating against invalid? Either one of these laws has to go, of that they are perfectly compatible with each other.
>Section 1 of the 14th amendment
The question of the day is whether these gun laws abridge the "privileges and immunities" at all.
>That is referring to employment, not discrimination made by the state government.
Is the state government not an "entity"? Here I thought the entirety of section 504 applied to employers alone, unless I spoke too soon and "programs and activities" do in fact overlook the execution of law.
>and direct threat means they are physically incapable of doing the job in a safe manner, like employing someone who is blind to be a lifeguard
Doesn't have to be a job. Whether he participates or benefits he is still bound.
>If it is, you are using his literal and exact quotes and arguments word for word and reading off the same script.
...or the same threads? We keep track over here.
>>
>>770141
The good thing is that binary choices mean diddly squat in the real world. China's government and America's government, no less their core beliefs at every level of their society, are not the only options we have to choose from. The ideological differences are as obvious as the oceanic gulf between them, but that doesn't mean we can't pursue balance in place of extremes.

China's collectivist society "permits" the government to weld people indoors for the sake of the nation. America's individualistic society "permits" individuals to forsake the government orders and go maskless and socialize, to obvious effect. Both suck. Even Japan and Worst Korea are doing fine compared to the US, since they at least struck a balance between heeding safety orders for the benefit of all, and respecting their personal autonomy.

If anything, the pandemic is only revealing the cracks in society that have long been papered over by the prevailing attitudes of either country. The individual is forsaken for the people and vice versa. Still, we can always do better than that, by moving beyond these binary dilemmas, but for us, it's only more urgent. At least till China publishes their death tolls and the dick measuring(?) begins.

In other words, lock down hard for 2 weeks, then back to "normal", but that's for another thread. Besides, I'm ATF, not CDC
>>
>>770158
Nobody cares except gun nuts.
>>
>>770154
>If the price is artificially high because of fees designed to deter buying a gun, yes.
What if it were purely market forces behind the cost, forget government levied fees? Would that still be infringatory to the 2A? It seems the only issue is in who prohibits who, huh?

>More so since they also have an effort requirement and expiration dates. Additionally, governments can purposefully under-fund testing sites/licensing bureaus to gatekeep.
The expiries seem to be a mechanism for maintaining a rolling state of gun competency, and to ensure that former gun owners are purged from the system regularly. Having a lifetime license would not help fulfill these goals so easily. As for underfunding, it doesn't seem to be anything more than bureaucratic games over political ones, though I'll have to see examples to be more specific. They're not the only ones fighting for a blank check I reckon
>>
>>770154
Oh yeah, I think infringatory still works out in terms of grammar. That which infringes? I'm not the only one to use it at least.

>>770158
>Can you and other grabbers at least pretend to know the existing gun control laws before you spout off nonsense and troll this thread. NYC has an extremely restrictive licensing system that denies people carry permits. NJ doesn't issue them either. The fees only exist to deter gun ownership.
If only we could get rid of the existing legal patchwork in place of a federal gun control bill, this would not happen. In any case, the fees go towards processing, handling, and the G-men who handle it (and personally, my white rice and dog meat allowance).

>Time to limit who can report things. That will be $3500 for your reporting tax stamp.
Good thing I'm not a reporter then. Youe freedom to speak is equally protected as your freedom to bear arms. But if you want to specifically broadcast on radio or TV, you'll (usually) have to pay for it, just as if you want to own specific arms for specific purposes. Nothing is certain but death and NFA tax stamps. Maybe not death since you can't pay if you're deceased.
>>
>>770173
The only infringements are...the infringements? Yes, guns cost money. That doesn't make it acceptable for the govt to add taxes that only exist to discourage you from exercising your rights.
I live in a state that requires a license to own firearms and another level of license to carry concealed. There is no competency check, it's just another fee. Look at the IL system and its wait times even pre-covid.

You want to make a difference in gun deaths? Mandatory training on how to safely handle a firearm for high school students. More programs where social workers talk to gang shooting victims in the hospital and convince them not to go shoot someone else as revenge. Promote the HoldMyGuns organization and remove the stigma of seeking mental health treatment as well as the threat that you will tempor-permanently lose your rights.
>>
>>770183
>Federal gun control bill
If by this you mean CA style gun control across the entire country, no this will never pass. If you mean a law that prevents NYC from overruling the Constitution, sure. Someone was supposedly submitting a reciprocity bill last year. And the money from the fees never leaves the state/city since this is all local law we're talking about. So your infringatory ass needs to scrounge up $0.50 for that raw bat soup somewhere else.
>>
>>770183
I had another thought about licensing, this might be a passable compromise. Offer a federal license, but don't make it mandatory. Encourage people get one by allowing them to skip NICS background checks. Require private sales to go through a NICS check or the buyer must have a license. Ending private sales without the check won't really do anything meaningful, but it will get people to shut up about the "gun show loophole."
>>
>>770173
I pointed that out already with the H&K example.
The expiration dates mean you have to continue towing the line because angering whoever can impede renewal results in a lapse of an ownership license and then the police are sent to kick in your front door at 3AM.
Depending on how thirtieth-world your locale is, you'll "resist arrest" and the police "had to defend themselves".
>>770183
It doesn't change you smeckledorfing the English language.
>>
>>764005
None of these would survive the Supreme Court
>>
>>770218
Shut people up about gun control with earplugs. Never concede.
>>
>>764005
>basic human rights
Oh, it's this twat again...
>>
>>770381
>oi m8 muh loisence
Someone wants to get slapped up for denying basic human rights again? :)
>>
>>770381
Why are you commenting on a story about American guns, yuro?
>>
>>770187
I wish I had something better to add to this than, "I like this."
>>
>>770187
>>770518
>Mandatory training on how to safely handle a firearm for high school students. More programs where social workers talk to gang shooting victims in the hospital and convince them not to go shoot someone else as revenge. Promote the HoldMyGuns organization and remove the stigma of seeking mental health treatment as well as the threat that you will tempor-permanently lose your rights.
Well, there is the question as to where does the money for that come from.

...and if not from a gun tax, then where?
>>
>>770523
Just eliminate food stamps and there is your money.
>>
>>770534
You mean eliminate one of the subsidies that keeps the agricultural industry alive?

I don't think the rurals would like the results.
>>
>>770536
Neither would the urbans, as a good chunk of their destitute would have starving children in short order.
>>
>>770536
Food stamps arent the same as farm subsidies. Food stamps get spent on mountain dew, junk food, and lobster
>>
>>770540
...Think you've been reading too many right wing blogs. I mean, yeah, you can spend your foodstamps on lobster - not that isn't an industry in trouble too - but your kids will starve. They aren't unlimited.

What kind of food do you think most parents buy their kids with cash?
>>
>>770540
You can tell you get talking points from boomer media because you still call them "food stamps". Those haven't been used in 25 years. You really mean the TANF and SNAP programs.
>>
>>770541
I don't have kids and I literally could not care any less if welfare fag kids starve. Also I worked in a grocery store for 6 years during hs and college and I never once saw someone on welfare making responsible food decisions. Literally all they would buy was junk food and filet mignon and lobster. I've never seen a poor person buy a vegetable. And it was a super representative sample because the county welfare office was down the street from where I worked. At least the illegals on wic bought actual food
>>
>>770545
Oh, so the nation only needs to support you, my king, I see.

More to the point, how many people do you want to see outside the offices of your would-be authoritarian government? Because, yes, when a government's decided to be the one that's to give the people what it thinks they need (such as removing welfare and subsidies), while ignoring what they think they need, that is authoritarianism - and when you do it to a poor minority, tyranny by majority to boot. Though you seem to be telling me it's just born out of greed for personal power, so not a surprising result.

Is that not what you want the guns for? To fight authoritarianism?

The poor are kind of hammered enough, without giving them yet another reason to storm the gates - and there's enough of them that they wouldn't need guns.
>>
>>770544
See>>770545
I worked in a grocery store from 2009 to 2015. All the poors would do is come in on the day they got their food stamps, buy a cart full of junk food and lobster and expensive cuts of beef and then later in the month come by and try to steal stuff or be ridiculous morons because there would only be like $2.36 on their food stamp card and they would get mad I wouldn't buy their food for them or give it to them for free
>>
>>770545
>>770552
Yeah, bullshit.

Junk food yeah, because it's cheap calories.

Lobster, no. Save the occasional on camera spoiled gal out to prove it.
>>
>>770551
>Oh, so the nation only needs to support you, my king, I see.
The nation literally does not need to support anyone on welfare.
>More to the point, how many people do you want to see outside the offices of your would-be authoritarian government? Because, yes, when a government's decided to be the one that's to give the people what it thinks they need (such as removing welfare and subsidies), while ignoring what they think they need, that is authoritarianism - and when you do it to a poor minority, tyranny by majority to boot. Though you seem to be telling me it's just born out of greed for personal power, so not a surprising result.
How the fuck is stealing less of people's money and not giving lazy fuckers free shit authoritarian by any measure? That makes no sense you retard.
>Is that not what you want the guns for? To fight authoritarianism?
How is cutting food stamps authoritarian?
>The poor are kind of hammered enough, without giving them yet another reason to storm the gates - and there's enough of them that they wouldn't need guns.
The poor are poor because they are lazy. I pay too much in taxes as it is. They do not deserve my labor because they chose to be lazy and abuse substances.
>>
>>764009
Hopefully they pass a law that makes the punishment for killing someone with a firearm a frantic and public disembowelment by a pack of ravenous Bald Eagles.
>>
>>770553
Literally every time food stamps got given out lobster sales went up. I literally fucking rung up people buying lobster with food stamps all the time.
>>
>>770555
>The nation literally does not need to support anyone on welfare.
Better prove that before you remove it then. 2/3rds of the nation is on one form or welfare or another, be it social security or something more direct. 2/3rds of the nation can't afford more than a $400 unexpected expense and still pay their rent.

Do the math. How many people do you want storming the doors of your congress?

>How is cutting food stamps authoritarian?
It is, if you do it against the will of the people, especially when most can barely make ends meet. Maybe your grand society isn't quite as successful for everyone as you've been lead to think?

>The poor are poor because they are lazy.
Oh, so they just need to find the energy to work then? Where do you think that's going to come from, when they are starving on the streets?

>>770557
So every month? Jeeze, wonder why the industry is in the shitter. Seems it should be through the roof.
>>
>>770562
>So every month? Jeeze, wonder why the industry is in the shitter. Seems it should be through the roof.
Not everyone gets their refill at the same time, it's based on when they got their first card, so you know it's bullshit. There is no "every time food stamps got given out", as everyone gets it a different day of the month.
>>
>>770564
There isn't that many different days in the month and you could recognize the people on welfare because they smelled bad and would always come whenever their card was filled and would tell you they were paying with ebt and usually had wic checks.
>>770562
>Better prove that before you remove it then.
Nah, just remove it.
> 2/3rds of the nation is on one form or welfare or another, be it social security or something more direct.
Cool, give the people their SSI money back and end the ponzi scheme. How many people are on welfare that isn't ssi/medicare?
>2/3rds of the nation can't afford more than a $400 unexpected expense and still pay their rent.
Not my problem.
>Do the math. How many people do you want storming the doors of your congress?
Clearly the 20k nasty girls in the capital can handle the poors. Sounds like terrorism that the lazy fuckers demand tribute or they will do murders.
>It is, if you do it against the will of the people, especially when most can barely make ends meet.
The majority does not have the right to own slaves. And stop referring to the poors as people. That is offence.
>Maybe your grand society isn't quite as successful for everyone as you've been lead to think?
It's great for anyone who isn't lazy
>Oh, so they just need to find the energy to work then? Where do you think that's going to come from, when they are starving on the streets?
Let them eat cake.
>So every month? Jeeze, wonder why the industry is in the shitter. Seems it should be through the roof.
Lobster is so through the roof Canadian indians are poaching lobsters to make bank
>>
>>770576
>you could recognize the people on welfare because they smelled bad and would always come whenever their card was filled and would tell you they were paying with ebt and usually had wic checks.
Strange neighborhood you worked in, where you get so few EBT customers you could pick them out of a line, rather than almost all or almost none.

>Nah, just remove it.
Good luck at the gates. You do understand why ideas like this don't pass, yes? The government is actually afraid of the people, just as you wanted.

>How many people are on welfare that isn't ssi/medicare?
The system cannot pay the full potential social security value too all recipients, all at once. Unless you want to borrow enough trillions to make everyone millionaires one day, and just hope they spend it responsibly afterwards.

>Not my problem.
They will make it your problem. They in fact, already have. That's how a nation that isn't able to make majority of its citizens successful tends to go.

>Sounds like terrorism that the lazy fuckers demand tribute or they will do murders.
But not when the white guys do it for their guns?

>And stop referring to the poors as people. That is offence.
Just need one good uncovered medical bill, and, generously assuming you aren't already, you will be. That's how most people end up going down a class.

>It's great for anyone who isn't lazy
2/3rds of Americans are apparently lazy - what do you think might be causing that level of learned helplessness? Maybe because the people in charge want to just want to kill off 2/3rds of the nation as inhuman, or at least sweep them under the carpet and pacify them with quasi-UBI, instead of giving enough of a shit about them to try to find a way to lift them out of their hole?

>Let them eat cake.
Ended well for her.
>>
>>770536
Many rurals in red States are on EBT or SNAP. The dirty little secret the right wing media won't tell you is 60%+ of the recipients are white! Go figure.
>>
>>770588
Yeah, though I dunno if that's really here nor there to the point, so much as to what degree it's a band aid, and to what degree it's an immobilizing splint. Hand up, or palm down?

It's not going away, we'll have to admit that - question is, what we can do better in its place that can be implemented in such increments as to not ferment a revolution?

...and, back to topic, the same goes with gun control. What can you do to prevent gun violence without fermenting a revolution?

In regards to that, I said >>770187 sounded like a good approach - but paying for it by ending all welfare, is just trading one revolution for another, much larger one. (Not that you really need THAT much cash for such a program.)
>>
>>770585
>Strange neighborhood you worked in, where you get so few EBT customers you could pick them out of a line, rather than almost all or almost none.
Generally they were either the same inbred family, the gypsies, the illegals, or the single moms from the battered women's shelter with mixed race kids
>Good luck at the gates. You do understand why ideas like this don't pass, yes? The government is actually afraid of the people, just as you wanted.
Please don't call them people. That is offensive
>The system cannot pay the full potential social security value too all recipients, all at once. Unless you want to borrow enough trillions to make everyone millionaires one day, and just hope they spend it responsibly afterwards.
So it is a ponzi scheme? And i said nothing about making people millionaires. I said have the fed give people back their fica taxes. They can even tell the companies to fuck off and not pay back the companies contributions.
>>
>>770585
>They will make it your problem. They in fact, already have. That's how a nation that isn't able to make majority of its citizens successful tends to go.
The single reason someone is poor in the USA is because they are lazy.
>But not when the white guys do it for their guns?
Gun ownership is a basic human right and doesn't harm anyone or infringe upon anyone's rights. Slavery is not a right and harms others and infringes on the rights of others. See the difference?
>Just need one good uncovered medical bill, and, generously assuming you aren't already, you will be. That's how most people end up going down a class.
No they go down a class because they are lazy and refuse to work.
>2/3rds of Americans are apparently lazy
Yup
> - what do you think might be causing that level of learned helplessness?
Democrat policies. That and their parents not putting importance on education
> Maybe because the people in charge want to just want to kill off 2/3rds of the nation as inhuman, or at least sweep them under the carpet and pacify them with quasi-UBI, instead of giving enough of a shit about them to try to find a way to lift them out of their hole?
End welfare and they will have to get jobs and the market will provide
>Ended well for her.
I'll take my chances
>>
>>770596
>What can you do to prevent gun violence without fermenting a revolution?
Take all black people, put them in a nation that isnt the USA. Gun violence in the usa drops by over 50%
>>
>>770610
And would still be higher than folks want it to be, along with welfare, even with that magic wand.

You can blame the blacks for everything, but it doesn't make for real good solutions.

>>770608
>The single reason someone is poor in the USA is because they are lazy.
So why are 2/3rds of Americans lazy?

>Gun ownership is a basic human right and doesn't harm anyone or infringe upon anyone's rights. Slavery is not a right and harms others and infringes on the rights of others. See the difference?
Either way, making people live in fear for their lives against their will.

>No they go down a class because they are lazy and refuse to work.
Are you simply too lazy to pay for a $2 million dollar uncovered medical bill?

>Democrat policies. That and their parents not putting importance on education
The party that keeps the party that wants to cut education entirely in check?

>End welfare and they will have to get jobs and the market will provide
It's not providing now, what makes you think it'll suddenly provide wit 2/3rds of Americans clamoring for more money that they weren't before?

>I'll take my chances
Your rulers, won't.
>>
>>770628
>Your rulers, won't.
Good, means they aren't the tyrants we frame them as, so much as people doing the best they can with a shitty situation.
>>
>>770628
>>770628
>And would still be higher than folks want it to be, along with welfare, even with that magic wand.
>You can blame the blacks for everything, but it doesn't make for real good solutions.
If you wanted a further reduction, ban red flag laws so suicidal men can get mental health care without cops murdering them and taking their property. And change immigration laws so that only biological women under 30 can immigrate to the USA. Having more young women than men would significantly cut down on male suicides
>>
>>770634
>If you wanted a further reduction, ban red flag laws so suicidal men can get mental health care without cops murdering them and taking their property.
Does this happen a whole lot more often than I think? As if it's happening often enough to have an impact on this situation, I'd kinda like to know.

Not that once isn't more than enough - I agree anything that may prevent folks from seeking mental health services when they feel they need them, does need a rework.

>And change immigration laws so that only biological women under 30 can immigrate to the USA. Having more young women than men would significantly cut down on male suicides
Heh. That's an interesting idea, though I don't see it passing muster. It's at least addressing the problem from a new angle though.

Reforming the red flag laws to make sure people can still get health care, might be more viable though.
>>
We have seen what a "revolution" in the 21 century can accomplished, with that said. I really want to know the logic behind the 2nd amendment. This was written back in 1787. WHAT IS THE FUCKING FASCINATION ABOUT OWNING A GUN?? I don't want to hear to protect my family, to stop the govt. Thats BULLSHIT
>>
>>770640
Might change your mind when you hear the break in downstairs, and your baby starts crying.

Beyond that, it's just another check and balance. It's not supposed to help in case of revolution, because at that point the government loses legitimacy, and the Constitution and all rights are effectively suspended.

It's supposed to make the government more wary of creating a revolution, and thus protect the Constitution, and all the rights that come with.
>>
>>770640
>>770642
To put it another way, the 2nd amendment nuts may seem like extremists - but the 2nd amendment was designed as a moderating force.
>>
>>770628
>So why are 2/3rds of Americans lazy?
SSI isnt welfare. Stop conflating the two. It is a bullshit ponzi scheme people were forced to invest in and are now getting their money back out of.
>Either way, making people live in fear for their lives against their will.
Absolutely not. People owning guns does not make others live their lives in fear anymore than letting people pick their own religion causes others to live their lives in fear.
>Are you simply too lazy to pay for a $2 million dollar uncovered medical bill?
Why should I pay for those lazy fuckers who refused to get insurance?
>The party that keeps the party that wants to cut education entirely in check?
The gop does not want to cut education. They want to cut federal doe spending because there are 51 state doe and doe spending doesn't correlate to higher test scores and doe spending just gets wasted on city retard schools. Where as smart suburb and exurb schools are funded by property tax.
>It's not providing now, what makes you think it'll suddenly provide wit 2/3rds of Americans clamoring for more money that they weren't before?
It isnt "providing" because lazy fucks get welfare and thus refuse to work. Also 2/3rds isnt the right number. See the SSI thing.
>Your rulers, won't.
Fuck them
>>
>>770648
>It is a bullshit ponzi scheme people were forced to invest in and are now getting their money back out of.
That's all welfare, in the end, but also not what I'm on about.

>People owning guns does not make others live their lives in fear anymore than letting people pick their own religion causes others to live their lives in fear.
Seems both those things generate quite a bit of fear for both wings.

>Why should I pay for those lazy fuckers who refused to get insurance?
Guess you're young yet - but you'll find that insurance doesn't pay for everything, including, occasionally something horrifically expensive required to save your or a loved one's life.

>The gop does not want to cut education. They want to cut federal doe spending because there are 51 state doe and doe spending doesn't correlate to higher test scores and doe spending just gets wasted on city retard schools. Where as smart suburb and exurb schools are funded by property tax.
I've never understood this bit where the solution for dealing with an underperforming schools was to their funding, thus making them worse.

But yes, they cut school funding left and right, while the Democrats just poor money in, with very little thought as to what's actually done with it. Both approaches seem irresponsible, and born out of mutual animosity, more than a desire to genuinely address the issue.

>It isnt "providing" because lazy fucks get welfare and thus refuse to work. Also 2/3rds isnt the right number. See the SSI thing.
Number's actually quite a bit higher - closer to Mitt Romney's, if I include elderly social security recipients. ...and SSI isn't what you think it is - that's a disability payment program, paid for by the same wad, only projected forward instead of backwards.
>>
>>770642
What if the government militarizes the police to such an extent that semi-auto rifles and handguns aren't cutting it against armoured vehicles, drone strikes and killer robots with inbuild facial recognition, and government representatives themselves are merely puppets for ultra rich sociopaths going through the motions of the constitution while shitting all over it?
Oh wait, that's actually the case now and the near future, and your guns are just artificial props to make you feel manly and in control for now.
P.s if someone breaks into your house they have guns too and will murder you to be safe in the safest way for themselves, not by blundering in and announcing it.
>>
>>770639
Doesn't matter how often it happens if it makes people chose not to seek healthcare and drastically lowering the value of pussy and making sure there were so many women that each guy got at least one would literally cure all of /pol/
>>
>>770669
Still more hesitant to ferment a revolution in an armed populous than an unarmed one. The less angry people you need to become a real threat, the more moderate you have to be in your approach, and the more people you need to please.

Similarly, burglary looks a lot less attractive when it puts one's life on the line. ...and people that addled and desperate don't tend to exactly be professional operatives.

>>770671
I think there are more fundamental reasons why /pol/ can't seem to get laid - chief among them being the inability to see anything from anyone else's point of view, and only being able to "love" via exchange of sacrifice and domination.
>>
>>770679
/pol/ can't get laid because it thinks women are subhuman and it turns out women don't actually like that sort of thing
>>
>>770683
It's not just women they feel that way about - it's everyone who is not themselves. They assume the worst in everyone, and thus hate everyone, without ever asking themselves why they themselves would act or think like that. They just assume they are better people, and that's why, rather than their position is different.

There is, however, the opposite extreme - where you love all of everyone, and therefor do no distinguish between the good and bad in them to direct them towards their own good - and most women don't like either, even if they are more apt to fall for it. They don't want to be with someone, who is going to indiscriminately bring out the worst in them - most sensible people, don't.

So, as with all things, a nuanced approach is required, and /pol/ is anything but nuanced.
>>
>>770523
A 1-3% tax on sales could probably pay for this. Note how this is different than a 200% tax on certain "bad guns" or suppressors.
>>
>>770690
Well, if the GOP made that counter-proposal, think they could pass it?
>>
>>770691
Yeah if they could haggle it down from 25% and think they got a deal.
>>
>>770751
Well, write your congressman.

Was that so hard? Jeeze...
>>
>>770752
>hello and thank you for your letter
>after careful consideration, i realized i value my job far too much to do anything but cuck harder. we have to all make sacrifices: yours are your rights, mine is my inbox.
>please don't do anything irrational like vote for my opponent. i know you'd get the same representation, but think of my children's future: without you paying my salary, they'd have to settle for public school
>sincerely, your republican congressman
>>
>>770809
I can tell you've never written a congressmen.
>>
>>770823
Only to Republicans.
I'm living in OH-16. Gonzalez is going to get primary'd by a shovel and two candy bracelets after voting to impeach.
>>
>>764005
I have always been Pro 2nd Amendment and own 9 guns.....but honestly, the more time I spend reading posts like these, maybe there should be a lot more rules to owning a gun!
>>
>>771639
Most gun owners agree on some rules. I'm fine with rules, provide they don't actually infringe egregiously against actually owning or acquiring them.

I'd be fine with a rule that said if you were convicted of a crime involving a firearm, you'd never be allowed to own own or possess one again, for instance. I've no issues that penalize criminals who abuse firearms. Provided, of course, the right to self defense isn't infringed upon.

Problem is, some states have practically made self defense a crime, though, on the other hand, some take it a bit too far. I believe so long as an intruder is on your property, you have the right to shoot them, if you have reason to believe they are hostile, or if they refuse to leave after any sort of warning. I don't care if you shoot them in the back. At the same time, I don't believe you have the right to chase someone six blocks, and then shoot them in the back.

These little nuances get to be important, and vary wildly from state to state. However, one SCOTUS ruling says you get automatic temporary insanity for 15 minutes after waking up, so at least you always have that defense, should a noisy intruder get you out of bed.
>>
>>770187
>Yes, guns cost money. That doesn't make it acceptable for the govt to add taxes that only exist to discourage you from exercising your rights.
We gotta get paid somehow. Its not just money for us to wipe our bums with, its meant (AFAIK) to support the pencil pushers and their paperwork. Even drivers licenses cost money, and although driving isn't a right, it's still an expense, for applicants and the bureaucracy that supports them

>Mandatory training on how to safely handle a firearm for high school students. More programs where social workers talk to gang shooting victims in the hospital and convince them not to go shoot someone else as revenge. Promote the HoldMyGuns organization and remove the stigma of seeking mental health treatment as well as the threat that you will tempor-permanently lose your rights.
I dig it. But all these solutions still have to contend with the spectre of guns, and the damage they can cause. Good policies, but I'll always consider deproliferation to be the best course of action. And by that, I don't mean gun bans, since it's too far late to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but come on, how many shooters do you all really need on the streets?
>>
>>770197
I don't recall CA ever being a federal body, but I'm not gonna stop you from thinking so. What I'm proposing is an end to the patchwork of laws, not just for gun laws. Maybe States rights is an obstacle to that, but some goddamn uniformity would be nice. Like a screen door on a submarine, one state's loose laws jeopardizes others.

>>770218
Not half bad an idea. At least it gives more choice to people, and it helps give more oversight

>>770246
Shit, guess I need more ESL classes. I always thought registration or deregistration was impersonal, you got a permit or you dont. I'd be surprised if the bureaucrats in charge of rubber stamping even give a crap for anything or anyone besides their next paycheck, but what do you see? If anything, maybe we can have identifying info anonymized so at least bias can't take over.
>>
>>770545
Generalizing never got points anywhere. If they're spending it on junk food and McD's you can't really blame em. Shits cheap, for better or worse, and poor people are more likely to be fat and unhealthy because of this. Look up food deserts

>>770555
Your social safety net emerged in part to the Great Depression, with the New Deal. If it did that much good alone, I doubt it's going away anytime soon. If you do insist on abolishing welfare however, then take crop subsidies from farmers away too, let the free market take care of them. See how far your social darwinism gets you.
>>
>>770608
>The single reason someone is poor in the USA is because they are lazy.
You know bootstrapping is physically impossible? Funny that the pioneers of that idea used a literal logical paradox to push their slop.
>Gun ownership is a basic human right and doesn't harm anyone or infringe upon anyone's rights.
Least till someone shoots a school up. Your chains are unlocked, you're free to live in the woods unchecked. Taxes are the admission fee of society
>No they go down a class because they are lazy and refuse to work.
Must be hard clocking in when you're crippled, injured, or dying.
>Democrat policies. That and their parents not putting importance on education
Considering your whole nation gets outranked by smaller, less powerful nations on education scores, maybe that goes for all your people. Fat lotta good
>End welfare and they will have to get jobs and the market will provide
The free market gave us the Depressions and Recessions of yesterday. So much for that. Rein in the bulls, bears, and businessmen alike.
>>
>>770642
Why would the government create a revolution that would throw themselves out? They're the ones who seek stability the most.
>>
>>770679
I still don't get why a government would foment a revolution against themselves instead of defusing one. And why is Democracy being held at the point of a gun? The government should fear the people; but not their arms, their votes instead. Other nations do just fine conducting elections and transferring power without the threat of civil war serving as a Damocles sword. Ours can do as much too.
>>
>>772349
Sometimes stability entails draconian control or tempts the government to stomp out some disruptive segment of the population. The check, ideally, makes said government less likely to get too trigger happy in that endeavor, as an effective revolution can be mounted with far fewer people.

Though, apparently, just a little over 500 unarmed Americans would have been enough, when combined with a few decades of constant incitement from both sides (turned up to 11 for these last four), tyranny of the loser, whenever either party gets into power, coupled with a president who doesn't give a damn about the state of the nation, causing those who want to see it burn to love him like no one else.

>>772358
Answering the same question again, with an additional reason: Some people have a propensity not to realize the numbers in front of them represent people, and can only think of them and theirs own as people - not strangers. An armed populous creates a situation where you have to please more folks you don't think of as people more often, to prevent a revolution, and mitigates that natural effect of detachment, where a single death is a tragedy, but 400,000 is a statistic.

Suffice to say this, among other things in the Constitution, were intended to give American democracy a unique character where the needs of the many are less likely to outweigh the needs of the few, while at the same time, the needs of the many would remain addressed.

Other countries maintain themselves without it, but do not have the spirit of rugged individualism and exceptionalism, that America has, which, in many ways, put it on top (though not nearly so much as expert diplomacy, ruthless business sense, and a nice geographical position during WW2).

Being a rebel, in most countries, is culturally frowned upon, a sign of immaturity. In the US, near everyone wears it like a badge of honor, regardless of age. There's... Ups and downs to that, but it's very American.





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.