Why do liberals want to ban guns?

Except to rise up against a tyrannical government, be it local, state, or federal, in order to free yourself from their oppression.

Or to protect yourself and your family from criminals.

Or to hunt wild boar or any number of other invasive species that would destroy the land if left unchecked.

Or simply because the United States was founded on the principle of freedom for all, and the government saying you cant do something that isn't hurting anyone is an encroachment if that freedom and flies in the face of the very backbone of what this country stands for.

Or any number of other reasons.

Gun violence.

It's not a liberal thing. It's a democrat thing. 60 years ago when Democrats were the conservatives demanding law and order and traditional values, they preached the evils of saturday night specials and armed minorities. They passed sweeping gun control measures across the country banning the public carrying of pistols in almost every state. After Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and the Democratic party's abandonment of the southern Dixiecrats, the parties flipped. Republican=conservative, democrat=liberal, but the democrats kept the gun control issue. They stayed steafast on that.

Yes, and your team will demand those be banned next.

And here we see the results of the mass-hysteria, someone who believes that guns are a bigger threat to our nation and kill more people than the opioid epidemic or any number of other issues the country is currently facing. Hell drunk driving is a bigger issue than gun-related crime.

Semiauto rifles arent going to stop the beeeg gobrmentt. Democracies have an excellent track record of not becoming tyrannical, just know what voting is and you'll he safe.

Home invasion can be done with a lot less.

Kek. Imagine needing an ar 15 to hunt boar. Real men use single shot rifles.

Oh look, this thread again.

Here we see a faggit who's got his head in his ass. I never said anything of the sort. Your fucking delusional.

Gun violence is just an easy fix that republitards dont want to fix because they would rather keep their ar 15s and let school children die then to surrender them.

Attached: solomon-georgio-c-solomongeorgio-what-we-said-we-need-common-28134279.png (500x375, 88K)

> school children die because ar15s are scary
> hardly any ar15s or similar rifles used in gun crime
> literally almost all handguns
> wants to ban the scary rifles but keep the guns that actually do the most damage
> making a bigger deal about this issue when more kids are dying of heroin and fentanyl overdose than are dying in "mass shootings" by a HUGE margin

I can't imagine what it's like to be this retarded.

This is a dumb argument, a well armed
populace is the only thing stopping a full on military state from taking over. Liberals hate the fact that the constitution allows individuals to own firearms, but simultaneously think that cops and law enforcement in general are bad as well. If the “man” is so evil and terrible to minorities then why would you not support them in their second constitutional right? Also no mass shooting has happened by an NRA member... ever.

See

What you said: "Hell yes we're going to take your AR15s"
What I heard: "I have no respect for the constitution, the amendments, this country, or the principles it was founded upon and I'm stupid enough to think saying this will win me an election so I can use the my position to get rich, because really that's all being a politician is about these days."

I think the whole tyrannical government bit is hilarious. If you want to go play army man with your friends, fine. But don't pretend it's a skill that will be of use somehow.

I find the fact that you think people who believe in the right to stand against a tyrannical government are all out playing "army man" to be even more hysterical, if not horribly misguided and ignorant.

To ban freedom of speech then communist rule

I don't, at least. Guns very much have a practical use. Better regulations would be nice, but I don't think it'll happen since guns are very much part of the culture in the south.

Do you believe that the government can confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that in most areas of America many police officers, veterans and first responders will side with the supporters of the second amendment? If you’re willing to go to a civil war over this issue than you better be ready to go

If you gathered 1000 people, and you put them into 10 rooms, and you monitored them psychologically for 3 days and you ranked the 100 people in each room from "most intelligent" to "least intelligent." Then you would find the least intelligent are prone to poor problem solving skills and consistent outbursts due to mental illness and high probability of violent interactions.

Then if you gathered the 5 bottom ranking people from each room, and you put them all together in a separate room then they would talk about weapon ownership, killing people, doing drugs, and unable to structure a coherent discussion about anything of any real importance.

Personally I don't. I rather like guns and I'd rather have one at the ready in case ICE comes to illegally detain me and my family for saying something a little too liberal and having a slight tan.

There are ways to sensibly regulate ownership of firearms so that legal, responsible people can own and operate them while preventing violent criminals and the dangerously insane from having them, and a candidate going "hell yes we're taking your guns" isn't a good thing.

There are more guns in America than there are people, how do you regulate or legislate that?

>that composition
How long have you been kept in the room, user?

Oh good Lord, not more civil war babble.

This is the biggest larp yet. No one is going to civil war, it's all in your head. You need to find a more constructive and positive hobby.

Attached: 1568501335467.gif (548x547, 246K)

You need to find a constructive argument instead of idiotic criticism

>pretending that owning a gun will make you immune to government

all you fags in this thread need to examine this

The second amendment is a line in the sand for a large chunk of America. Get over it

Because american citizens are as a whole irresponsible with them. It's quicker and far less expensive to just control them or ban them rather than spend decades or centuries curing mental illness or society's ills as a whole.

What do you even mean by "banning"? Have you ever read or heard a policy suggestion by any influential democrat or do you just make shit up in your head and pretend that's reality?

Yeah go fuck yourself instead of fucking over the rights of other more responsible citizens that actually care to provide and protect

k. so you're retarded ed

As if millions of gun owners could even get together and even militarize against any gun-carrying occupational militarized factions.

The police, U.S. military, unemployed, DMV employees, local government, parking meter attendant, etc would all be more than happy and more than successful in coming to your mobile homes and knocking on your doors and taking your weapons away.

right on, brother.

I used to think similarly, though more in the middle. Then I watched Catalonia successfully pass a vote to secede from Spain, and watched a tyrannical government rip the ballot boxes right out, declare the election never happened, then ruthlessly beat protesters in an aggressive (NOT DEFENSIVE) manner.

youtube.com/watch?v=EvhvMgcJ6M8
youtube.com/watch?v=GI49YSCruwY
youtube.com/watch?v=KUiVz3rW_Rg

Keep in mind, Spain wasn't considered "tyrannical" and was a democracy. Everyone agrees there's massive corruption happening in government, and that our politicians don't have our best interest at heart. Yet people want to just fork over our only means of defense. It doesn't really make sense when you think about it.

I personally dont think we need to.

On the flip side there are more cars than people and those are pretty well regulated.

P.S. this is only one example. Let's not forget that Hong Kong has their own issues right now, as does Venezuela, Brazil and others. Plus the history of Germany during WW1 and 2.

Don't worry white trash, you'll be able to keep your penis replacements.

Just look at that crazy spics eyes.

Cars do not equal guns. We can talk about regulation, but the laws already on the books are very reasonable and the propositions put forth by the Democratic party in the US would not have prevented any of the mass shootings this year or in years previous

while you niggers gun each other down

Control. Nothing more, nothing less. The average progressive believes they know what is best for everyone else.

It's a hard pill to swallow for you, but a hundred 'school children' (why say it like that, does it make them sound more innocent and fragile than just saying 'kids'?) could die every day from guns and it would still not be a viable reason to take away my rights.

Im not American, but then what's the point of banning any guns, if there are still some guns people will just use those guns to commit the same crime.

Sounds like you just don't want to say ban all guns.

Attached: 1565849249162.jpg (500x562, 85K)

Attached: beto is a bitch.jpg (467x960, 35K)

implying high school kids aren't shooting up their peers. top kek faggot, top kek.

Attached: beto is shit.jpg (631x767, 84K)

The only real answer is control. If they were interested in stopping violence, they would look at mental issues and immigration from third world countries.

Attached: beto is total fag.jpg (1242x1011, 248K)

Attached: gun control fag 50.jpg (500x734, 66K)

Attached: gun control fag 53.jpg (720x720, 72K)

And how the fuck do you know this as a fact?

Because it’s a fact that most sheriffs throughout the country have come out in support of the second amendment. Call your local sheriff and ask if you don’t believe it.

Attached: gun control fag 1.jpg (500x500, 86K)

Attached: beto is a beta.jpg (464x504, 43K)

Not him, but because quite a few people in those fields are ex-military and most military personnel are conservative. They took an oath to uphold the constitution and defend the country against all threats both foreign and domestic. Violating the constitution and embracing communism seems like a pretty big domestic threat. Not to mention asking police to go around and confiscate guns from their own friends and neighbors isn't going to go over well. The ONLY way confiscation is attempted is by bringing in people from another area, possibly from another country. How do you think gun owners are going to feel about having some schmucks from bumfuck who cares coming to their neighborhood to enforce unconstitutional bullshit? I don't think they're going to appreciate it very much and will act accordingly.

I'm white, just calling out the white trash betas.

cuz we got guns and pretty girls

Attached: girl with ar15.jpg (768x960, 118K)

Ask the family of one of the thousands of slain that question, you fucking moron.

Most sherrifs are fuckin ignorant assholes.

Attached: gun control fag 6.jpg (960x825, 76K)

Because they suck at fps games

Prove it. Oh wait... you can’t cause the gun lobby

Your pound of flesh is failed logic

Attached: fuck you beto.jpg (960x960, 159K)

Nice trips

...

Attached: 1522422009617.jpg (500x628, 73K)

Attached: fuck up lib 11.jpg (917x4143, 644K)

are you illegally here?

Attached: kid gun.jpg (960x734, 96K)

Attached: lib eyes.jpg (720x720, 58K)

because they are idiots.
why do alt right tards think anyone who supports rational gun laws is "liberal" who wants to "ban guns"?

what makes politicians responsible enough then?
washingtonexaminer.com/news/beto-orourke-on-his-gun-confiscation-plan-no-its-not-voluntary-its-mandatory
also id link bernies twitter comment but it seems to be gone

SHALL

NOT

cuz we got white asses and guns!

BE

Attached: gun ass.jpg (844x951, 101K)

INFRINGED

How buying a gun should work.
>go to gun store
>pick out gun(s)
>store owner calls FBI for backgrond check for a potential gun buy
>Mr.FBI runs check
>check comes back as hold no gun for you
>check comes back as green then buy as many guns as you desire
>walk out with guns

How the left wants buying a gun to be like
>go to gun store
>pick out gun
>owner calls in to Mr.FBI and says Mr user wants to buy an AR-15 chambered in .223, 18 inch barrel, with 200 rounds of ammo and 4 "high cap" mags of 20 rounds each with accoressies X, Y and Z and with a serial Number of 123456-789A
>yes he bought this gun
>come back in 30 days because waiting periods totally work you guys

As a gun owner i do support common sense gun laws. Its just what i consider common sense gun laws and what the anti constitutional left thinks is common sense gun laws are not on the same plane of existance as each other.

Attached: 1284233992123.jpg (1920x1200, 1.02M)

There is no such thing as 'rational gun laws'
All gun laws are unconstitutional bullshit.

Not retarded at all user. All part of the plan.

>ban AR-15's
>when this failes to produce results promised its clearly because we need to ban pistols!
>when this fails its because we need to ban shotungs and bolt action rifles!
>when that fails its because we need to ban muskets!
>when that fails we need to ban knives, acid and bombs
>when that fails maybe look at tight truck rental laws.

Republicans are willing to work to address the CORE of the issue but the left wants to push their feel good anti gun agenda and they are willing to let people keep getting shot to do it.

Attached: 1567200108892.jpg (1798x1491, 373K)

so the constitution is to be taken literally?
no room for interpretation, no means to apply it's intent to current technology?

>keep drinking the NRA koolaid cooter

>There is no such thing as 'rational gun laws'
really, dumbass?
so criminals should be allowed to own guns?

you don't need guns to fight fascist trump supporters just knives and imaginations!

Attached: fuck up lib 7.png (960x720, 1.29M)

The man who plays ron swanson is a flaming libtard who is anti gun.

Also Bert from tremmors is anti gun.

>you don't need guns to fight fascist trump supporters just knives and imaginations!
or an IQ above 73

youtube.com/watch?v=AF81RV-T6_I

and this video has what to do with my comment about trumpies having a sub 80 IQ?

Attached: fuck cnn gun control fag.jpg (892x960, 128K)

They dont. Conservatives say they do because they know people like you will eat it up. The right to bear arms isn't really in the constitution either, at least not as it's being interpreted. Also it's kind of a stupidly vague thing isn't it? I mean if you banned guns and kept muskets your rights wouldn't be infringed upon, or if they are then why cant you own a tank or a f-35 privately? So when someone tries to take away your assault rifle we always have this stupid debate as to "where to draw the line" as if we need to draw a line.....30 people are killed in a single setting and we as a society are too stupid to read the god damn bill of rights talking about maintaining militias to ward off tyranical governments.

What happened to Donald Trump being Hitler and having concentration camps for non-whites?

...

libs are just fuck up in the brains so

Attached: fuck up anti gun cunt.jpg (1051x770, 113K)

Keep reciting your masters talking points. Sheep.

I own guns.
I support the 2nd amendment.
If you think the USA could become China with or without the it, you are dumb beyond words.

They aren't. The gubmint is.

If you're going to fake a news article, at least get someone to proofread your shoop, faggot web brigade operatives.

Doctor i’ve never seen such a case of denial

Attached: 8FF937AC-4388-4DFE-A3AA-AC4562C9BD86.jpg (1105x996, 261K)

Coalburners

Attached: my safe space.jpg (530x474, 41K)

Not OP

>They dont.

Yes they (liberals) do.
>Conservatives say they do because they know people like you will eat it up.
"conservatives" call anyone who supports ANY gun regulations "liberal"

Why do retarded, subhuman shitposting Russian web brigade shills think anyone falls for this stupid shit?

Eat a bullet, OP.

They're going to have them anyways, you know.. because they're criminals, so...?

Attached: libtard.jpg (600x450, 88K)

are criminals considered citizens when in prison?

way to miss the point son

Attached: based babe.png (370x767, 321K)

I'm pretty far left but I don't believe we should ban guns at all, banning something outright leads to black markets. Just regulate them in ways that discourage "bad guys with guns". Comprehensive gun license laws, banning certain types of modifications, and limiting magazine sizes can help make mass shootings more difficult.

>why cant you own a tank or a f-35 privately
You fucking should be able to buy one if you can afford one, and I honest to god believe that.

She is a white supremacist, like Dave Chapelle

>completely missing the point
its hilarious that you faggots support politicians that are actively trying to limit the first and second amendments.

Attached: cain.jpg (960x773, 96K)

that is why I love her!

Attached: lib think.jpg (750x563, 59K)

i'm not a lawyer, but i'd guess yes they are.
They just lose, justifiably, some of their rights.
What's your point?

Gottem

>limiting magazine sizes can help make mass shootings more difficult
Have you ever used guns? Magazine swaps can be done in a couple seconds by someone who just shoots for fun, or be done in fractions of a second by someone who actually trains regularly. The size of a magazine is irrelevant, it just means you have to carry more of them which isn't a big deal.

What kind of modifications do you think need to be banned?

Attached: gundam thumb up.jpg (1440x1080, 117K)

>You fucking should be able to buy one if you can afford one, and I honest to god believe that.
So you would be OK with a Pablo Escobar owning a fighter jet?

Attached: guns are good.jpg (908x960, 99K)

well in prison I believe they do not have the same status as a citizen, my point is in prison they should not be allowed but outside of prison they are citizens and should have that right.

he isn't a US citizen so I don't give a shit

Attached: gun control fag 20.jpg (800x701, 63K)

I'd be okay with anyone being able to buy one who can pass the standard NICS background check performed on all dealer-made firearms transactions. But we all know Escobar was a criminal and if he could find someone to sell him one he would have bought it regardless of the laws.

This liberal doesn't give a rat's ass one way or another. Just stop posting this horse-face and kys.

my parents was murdered by a gun! but yet I'm not anti-2nd like you lib faggots!

Attached: cool bat.jpg (870x846, 115K)

I'll say it slow so YOU can understand.
I, ME, speaking for MYSELF, don't want to "limit the 2nd or 1st amendment" I'm just rational enough to not want the mentally unstable or criminals to have access to a firearm.

Attached: gun control fag 51.jpg (662x960, 102K)

Attached: 1568002035984.jpg (500x750, 63K)

Based! Will now look for and buy that sign.

Attached: gun free zones work.jpg (640x640, 96K)

>mentally unstable
How do you fine who is and who isn't mentally unstable? Do you support 'red flag' laws? Those are a very slippery slope. Say you cut me off in traffic and I honk and flip you off as most people would. All you have to do is call the police and say I'm a lunatic or even make some shit up like I was waving a gun out the window to make it really spicy, and all of a sudden my door is getting kicked in and my rights violated right the fuck out the window. People make shit up and lie out of spite all the time and it would be done relentlessly to gun owners by anti-gun people just to get them labeled 'unsafe' to possess a gun.

Better question to ask is would they?

well obviously, shes getting paid a lot to peddle this shit,

Attached: fem worldwide.jpg (700x700, 139K)

>don't want to "limit the 2nd or 1st amendment I just want the people I don't like to not have access to them

Attached: 1568429221059.jpg (261x173, 11K)

Attached: flash gun 1.jpg (1223x930, 433K)

Attached: flash gun 2.jpg (1221x945, 480K)

Attached: flash 3.jpg (1218x942, 449K)

Attached: flash 4.jpg (1216x940, 400K)

Attached: flash 5.jpg (1216x942, 484K)

Attached: flash 6.jpg (1216x941, 467K)

>tfw you'll never get the guns

Attached: 1346485549190.png (447x700, 421K)

It's amazing how many of these things I've never replied to and magically my family is still alive, despite very unhealthy lifestyles.

That said my cat did die but that was a month ago due to cancer which we suspect started about 4 months ago and was misdiagnosed by our vet.

Only fucking idiots care about these things though.

This question is misleading, which makes it faggotry. Liberals DON'T want to ban guns. They just want to ban assault rifles. You can still have your guns, fag. You just need to give up that AR-15 that you claim you NEED, but will never use for anything other than target practice.

you are missing the point.
There needs to be laws that make it illegal for ANY criminal from owning a firearm.
NOT only to help prevent them from acquiring one, but to convict them if they do so illegally.
No laws will fix everything, but thinking the 2nd A as written in the constitution is the be all to end all without ANY interpretation is naive at best.

If we never use it for anything other than target practice then why in the world do we need to give it up??

salt rifles!

Attached: what the f cat.jpg (670x670, 37K)

Largely because Europe is under constant propaganda that gun control works -- it doesn't -- and liberals look to Europe considering they're more socialistic than the US as an example.

On top of that liberals are vindictive, understand that more conservatives than not enjoy gun rights, and they don't mind kicking conservatives in the shins just to spite them.

Ultimately though gun control is a complete sham.

gun control worked! now we need knives controls!

Attached: gun control works.jpg (627x680, 61K)

if you believe your meme, you are too stupid to:
Drive
Own a gun
Reproduce
Vote
or anything but say "you want fries with that?"

>Liberals DON'T want to promote homosexuality to children. They just want to allow gay couples to marry.

Attached: Leftism.jpg (960x960, 108K)

nothing wrong with working fast foods you lib elitist asshole!

Attached: kfc vs mc.jpg (500x490, 106K)

Why must niggers always make that face in pictures? Good God.

Because they want control

>niggers

Attached: liblogic.jpg (709x699, 51K)

she can ban guns aslong as we can see pics of her butthole

Based on what evidence?

>I just want the people I don't like to not have access to them
It's not I dont like dipshit,
It's are you capable of handling it competently.
If you are not "competent" you should not be able to posses.
Are you too stupid to understand this?
no need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.
>google RHETORICAL

Nothing sexual about that, retard.

And yes, Drag queens exist, so they should show that to children. It's ok to be different. It's ok to dress up.

You want to protect children, you retarded bigot? Stop the priests from raping them.

yeah, sure

Attached: double nun pistol.jpg (776x960, 135K)

>you lib elitist asshole!
keep on assuming junior

It's a faggot dressed as a demon, that shouldn't be within 600yds of toddlers, "RETARD"! God damn, you people are so immature.

yes they only want to ban the things that limit their amount of control over the population.

Why ban guns when you can take guns.

Attached: GunsAndKidsDontMix.jpg (786x760, 38K)

>t's are you capable of handling it competently.If you are not "competent" you should not be able to posses.Are you too stupid to understand this?
are you too stupid to understand that this shit would be abused and is entirely based on a definition of competent that can be easily changed.

>so they should show that to children
why? why would you teach children about a fringe sexual fetish?

implying this ever wasn't happening before gun free zones and vaporizers

Cause your fag son will steal it and shoot up his school while you're at work.

huh?

>All you have to do is call the police and say I'm a lunatic or even make some shit up like I was waving a gun out the window
This actually happened to me. Someone Pointed a gun at me saying " i cut her off".
Should she be allowed to own a handgun, yet alone an AR?
I'd bet you a MILLION dollars your answer would be different if I told you the skin color of the woman.

>are you saying the constitution was made to be read and interpreted as it was written by those who founded the country?

preposterous right?

Can you misinterpret "people should not fear their government" for us too?

Far more teens are killed by distracted driving. In fact, it's becoming one of the leading causes of death among teens in the US. We're not talking about a dozen deaths every few years, it's in the thousands. Why not ban all cellphones you ask? Because it's a nonsensical reaponse. People die in far greater numbers for much simpler reasons and we just deal with because that's life.

>so theres no way for the government to create loopholes by inventing new devices then claiming their opinions are now the new interpretation of a constitution written for the people, by the people?

Um. Exactly.

Because it exists. therefore, the developmental young should be made aware of it. Most non-retards like kids to be experienced and know about as much of the world as they can before they grow up.

And drag queens are not sexual or fetishists. it's basically just cross dressing.

> Americans maintain the right to have guns
> Right exists to overthrow government if they have to
> Overthrowing government is Terrorism
>Terrorism is bad

Wait so I'm confused, are Americans supporting Terrorism by refusing gun control? Or does every American secrectly support Terrorism by existing?

Cry harder retard. You clearly have the IQ of a gnat.

You'd never believe what happened to me, back in the 80s.

Attached: 11_7_87.jpg (241x210, 9K)

so does torture methods, that doesn't make it appropriate to teach to children.
>And drag queens are not sexual or fetishists. it's basically just a fetish
okay live in denial

>are you too stupid to understand that this shit would be abused and is entirely based on a definition of competent that can be easily changed.
what state do you live in?
I live in a state where you don't need a CCW to carry. And, yet I still applied and have a CCW.
Apparently you are not competent, and the thought of that affecting what you can or can't do scares you.
I'm not scared

This is a legit tranny, confirmed. TOP KEK!

No, just someone with a brain. I know Republican retards don't meet us very often.

Tell me, tranny, how many nigger dick threads do you spam here a day? You do know that's going to radicalize people, don't you?

where in the constitution does it say ANYTHING about:
motor vehicles
the internet
global corporations.
drivers licences
nuclear bombs

ALL of these are not in the constitution, because they did not exist when it was written.
So, are the laws regarding the above listed items are unconstitutional in your mind?

Not trans. (they're only like 0.03% of the population)

I have never saved or posted nigger dicks.

The spammers are Russian and Macedonian web brigade operatives.

Spamposting doesn't radicalize anyone but retards like /pol/ trash and Stormtrash.

You're an imbecile. No one is listening to you.

>Macedonian web brigade operatives.

Attached: BoiImma.png (291x396, 215K)

Rifles (including semi-auto) only account for 4% of murders, while handguns are accountable for over 60%. If we're only counting semi-auto rifles, the number would be even less.

rofl!!! if that were the case then everyone in the usa would be dead. there are more legally owned guns in the us then people.

this

thats right cuck

Germany was a democracy when Hitler got elected by posing as a "for the people democratic socialist"

ya'll missed his point

Kill yourself.

>this level of butthurt from an ammosexual

This makes me moist.

Nice try you pathetic spamming retard, but it's Trump Jr. who is 100% Butthead.

Attached: beavis.jpg (480x479, 40K)

Canada used to have a gun registry for some years, but ultimately repealed it because it was only supposed to cost 2 million dollars, but it ended up costing over 2.7 billion.

Simple solutions to complex problems sway public opinion, but end up showing signs of failure within the first 10 years.

>team
and therein lies the problem with this entire dumbfuck country

yes the right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution, just because liberals don't know what a comma is doesn't mean that get to change that. as for militias... that's not the national guard. that's the citizens knowing how to use weapons just in case they need them... you know to put down a coup or guarantee their rights... like the first amendment, aka the freedom of speech that you have used, and other have lost in places and are losing in the UK and other places.

Attached: gun control fag 60.jpg (658x960, 92K)

Because the continuation of civilization is as deep as the chorus to a Frank Sinatra song

You can't blame liberals, it's just in their nature to be afraid and blame others for their insecurities.

>smoking
And the relevance of this poster has ended.

If guns only killed the ones who use them like cigarettes do, we wouldn't have a problem. Guns make subhumans and crazy people able to mass murder with ease. That is unacceptable and needs to be curbed.

yup.
tribal politics instead of rational compromise.
Something completely gone since Clinton left office

But you call them when a scary man breaks into your house.

>American feminist
Those are actually Russian feminists.

why aren't you disputing this?

Attached: fuck up pussy.jpg (641x1024, 60K)

Last time there was an assault rifle ban, the commercial AR15 platform was literally born. People act like the Constitution is the fucking 10 commandments, it's objectively pretty pathetic. The things stupid Americans will cling to for a feeling of security.

A ban would provoke a lot of innovation and probably not get renewed in typical American limp-dick, flip-flop style of letting anyone take office who can swing their cock wide enough and with enough dollar bills spewing out the nose.

But seriously, a basic weapons ban would change very little other than being a gesture. Guns would get more expensive after about 5-10 years, whoop-dee-doo.

The real reason there's so much resistance to common sense gun legislation is fear. And the right has a LOT more fear than any other political affiliation in the Western hemisphere.

And it's funny you mention him, because I'll always have that image of him ratifying the assault weapons ban in front of a crowd *without getting shot*

Attached: melded.gif (500x375, 258K)

killing slowly is better than a quick death?

Attached: yes the libs do want to take yours guns.jpg (828x1792, 177K)

and how is an ar-15 different from any other semi-auto rifle? it's not.... but that doesn't matter to them because once they ban one they can move on to the next. And soon all guns will be banned and then what. maybe you cant say that you don't like a certain politician or a company or charity without going to jail... or Siberian-esk area for re-education? don't tell me it would never happen... I will not believe you and world history have proven it.

>slippery slope
Nope, you're wrong, paranoid and dumb as bricks. That's not how most things, particularly laws, work.

Attached: oppenheimer.jpg (600x453, 66K)

Attached: my bf is a fag.jpg (726x960, 100K)

>it's just in their nature to be afraid and blame others for their insecurities.
As opposed to little "men" who need their guns to prove the are men.
and, yes, I own firearms. I'm just not insecure like you.

Isn't the whole point of a brandished firearm to make someone uncomfortable?

Kind of a shit argument, no matter how much irony you lace it with. Put a lock on that shit if you aren't trying to show it.

Their expectations are western europe but the reality will be more like mexico or brazil

> (You)
>And it's funny you mention him,
i only mentioned him in the sense of both sides compromising.
I was not then or now in favor of an "assault weapons ban"

Attached: red flag bitch.jpg (1000x854, 78K)

>Isn't the whole point of a brandished firearm to make someone uncomfortable?
no it's not child.
If you "brandish" your weapon, it is ONLY if you are prepared to use it. IE: you need to defend yourself.
It's not TV, or whatever game you are playing on Xbox, junior.

And that's what that ban was, a compromise. It didn't do anything to curb firearm culture and objectively made it stronger long term.

You can say you aren't in favor of it but that's a principle speaking. The left gets to call it a 'ban,' the right gets to pull the teeth out. Both sides win, the public gets minorly inconvenienced.

But yeah, it feels like the compromise is dead. Kind of sad because common sense gun legislation is long overdue, as is legislation for most other public access amenities.

Attached: screwdriver.jpg (500x432, 47K)

Why do conservatives want to ban intelligent

They don't really care, it's just a big circle jerk. Lefties only pretend to care about others so they can go home and have sex with their ego.

Attached: fuck up lib 3.png (1064x208, 37K)

>a brandished firearm
>If you "brandish" your weapon, it is ONLY if you are prepared to use it

Yeah, no shit Ted Nugent.

You literally agreed with me. You brandish a firearm to intimidate, then you run the action, then you point at the baddie. It's a 3-step way of saying'don't fucking do it'
I'm not talking about open carry, you fucking maggot.

Do you always assume other people are as fucking stupid as you are?

You assume I don't understand what the word brandish means because you posted a meme on a t-shirt?

Attached: 0_vROtkefp1JMRj95-.jpg (304x400, 29K)

Ausfag here. They took away our semi autos then targeted lever action shotguns, they restricted them and now are targeting lever release rifles and black scary looking bolt actions.

Don't hand in anything since they will take more and more over time

???? lol ok your a libtard shill right? cause that exactly how it works! they are fucking banning knives; not switch blades, not "Rambo" knives, but all knives in London... because banning guns didn't stop anything. the only reason you haven't seen it in the US is because we haven't done it. oh and don't really know why you put Oppenheimer up.... may have been a democrat that dropped the bomb but that was way back, you know when the dems were way right of even the libertarians at the time

Attached: gun control fag 32.jpg (916x768, 129K)

It's not really the same. Australia has been cucked out of its literal citizens' lives since well into 1960. US culture would not accept that shit. They didn't in the last ban, they wouldn't again.

Sure did lower gun crime though

hmmmm... was that Mao, Hitler, Stalin? or AOC maybe? sauce?

>you lib elitist asshole!
i make $50k a year, mow my own lawn, change my own oil and maintenance on my cars. and have more calluses than you will ever know.
how am I "elitist" again?

Because one was accidental/negligence (car accident) while the other (high powered weapons, guns with mass stopping power) is deliberately being used for it's purpose.

We already regulate driving, you need to take a written and physical test and you need insurance before you can drive. For some reason it isn't legal to make cars more pointy so that they can do more damage when they hit people.

A shit load of gun owners protested the bans when it first happened and now it is all just petitions and constant arguing with the police/government.

The 2 big parties that always win both won't loosen our gun laws. Aussies got cucked and along side the gun ban we got bans for bullet proof vests and pepper spray

Lowered suicidal gun deaths, they use pills and rope now.
Gun crime is still very common and mass shooting still happen. The gun deaths are still falling at the same rate as they were before the ban.

>we haven't done it
Assault weapons were banned from manufacture and import for 15 years in the US and the statute expired, releasing the law.

The UK still has a symbolic monarch, whereas the US has a hundreds-of-years' old culture surrounding firearms which receives utmost attention.

You're plainly a doof for drawing a comparison like that. Laws don't just lead 'from one thing to the next' in this country when it comes to guns. Get a level head if you don't understand that.

I posted the pic for the expression of a man who dwarfs your intellect with a tranquil and belittling expression, calm down you mongoloid.

Attached: ladri-di-biciclette.jpg (768x433, 74K)

Mass shootings went down significantly. Gun related violence in general went down. Most gun violence in recent years has been gang or biker bullshit

for the REPUBLIC!

Attached: 1540142996965.jpg (799x616, 146K)

Always had been biker and gang bullshit.
Gun related violence/shootings had been going down at the same rate before the ban though.

I am not totally against our current gun laws when it comes to licensing and safe storage but I am against unnecessary bans of certain guns because they "look scary" or can shoot at paper targets quickly

>liberals don't know what a comma is
Conservative people don't understand it's not 1776. They carried guns all the fucking time because at any moment there could be a slave uprising. They were worried everyday that it could be their last.
The Constitution is a living document because the founders understood that it will need to change, they knew their document where they had an enslaved populace wasn't a perfect document.

good on ya for all that but are you fucking for real? cause the meme is true.... the government doesn't do anything that the politicians don't tell em they have to do... and all the politicians want is power.... if you don't believe that then well.... maybe you should read your post

Protests are one thing.
When you're talking about keeping guns to fight the government, when they take them away is the singular time you start using them for that purpose.

In or outside the US, that's the whole point. If you can't commit to that, then the intention was misplaced or unfaithful from the beginning.
The American revolution started as a direct result of confiscation and various other pressures. What I'm saying is if Australia didn't act then, the guns must not have been that valuable to them for better or worse.

Gun related violence had been going down. Mass shootings were still fairly common. It definitely helped halt them.

It's scientifically proven that conservative people are fearful.

yes it is a living document.... with a stated means to change it.... amendments! good luck removing the 2nd...

>And that's what that ban was, a compromise
I'll try to be slow for you here.
When I mentioned Bill Clinton and the word COMPROMISE, i was referring to HIS and the opposing part(ies) in congress to COMPROMISE on THINGS.
I was NOT referring to ANY gun legislation.
I will reiterate, I have never supported any gun ban. Should there be laws/rules /regulations?
YES.
I can drive a car wild a drivers licence, but need a different one to drive a commercial vehicle.
Same should be true for guns

Attached: 1521428514622.jpg (1000x1413, 255K)

why do you?

your logic makes no sense. If there's a good reason, you can absolutely change it. Change doesn't mean "amputate it and burn the stump!"

You sound paranoid as fuck after that dribbling stream of consciousness.

I mean it is still very possible for a mass shooting to happen with both legal and illegal guns.

The law isn't actually stopping anyone from grabbing their guns and going to shoot at people, the people who legally own guns are just mentally stable enough not to go around shooting people. I do agree licensing helps weed out suicidal people and those who will cause harm (such as the left who only think about shooting other people with guns) and if someone who could not get a gun license wanted to go on a mass shooting they can just go buy one illegally but the un-necessary restriction on types of firearms should be re-looked at.

I think of it as depopulation
>nice trips

she is a white supremacist!

Attached: 1561569526450.jpg (730x699, 79K)

Can still happen, but has happened a whole lot less. Dramatically reduced. Arguably becuase of ease of access. As long as one gun exists on earth its possible still, but the reduced numbers has been nice.

Have you been to the psychiatrist about your obvious paranoia?

I love how the one who made this couldn't even bother to make the shitty shirt, just lazily photoshop letters onto a stock image.

GodDAMN, Ivan. You need to learn to apply yourself.

Thinking the 2A is about maintaining a militia to fend off the government is a misreading of it. The militia they are talking about being necessary is the government. If they could've the country wouldn't have a standing army, so they knew they'd at the very least need a militia. Since the government would be armed, the right of the people to be armed therefore was necessary, both for serving in a militia AND for fending off a tyrannical govt. You have to take it in context, and yes it still applies today and for the same reasons. There's a reason it doesn't say muskets, they are talking about weapons of war. Yes we've already given up too much ground and most of the gun regulations in this country are blatantly unconstitutional already.

lol wow so now you've resorted to personal insults.... ok have a good night and HOW DARE YOU assume my whatever... you have no clue who you are talking to... but no I'm not your political hero. even you are smarter then they are (I hope)... oh! and yes laws do lead from on thing to the next. Maybe it takes a little longer then the last time a government did it, but...

are you another shill?

>You brandish a firearm to intimidate, then you run the action, then you point at the baddie. It's a 3-step way of saying'don't fucking do it'
I'm not talking about open carry, you fucking maggot.
my god, you are stupid.
The ONLY time you draw a weapon is if you are prepared to use it.
Not as "threat" or to make someone "uncomfortable"
It is to defend yourself.
PERIOD.
I don't "assume" anything about you.
Your posts prove your ignorance

Imagine I for a moment insinuated you personally allowed the assault weapons ban to be ratified. Oh woe is me!

My point was everyone knew the ban wouldn't work. It was a gesture. I never said it was the right way to do things but the way you or I want to do things is probably not going to be the right way in 35 years either.

I brought up his signing that document, no need to get sweaty that I drew a comparison there.

Wow, did the t-shirt meme have that much concrete meaning to you?
I used the word 'uncomfortable' to be snarky. Most children would have gotten that.

And no dude, the firearm doesn't come out the moment you actually have to defend yourself.
If it does you suck at defusing a potentially violent encounter. I walk into my kitchen and I see you crawling through my window, I'm not defending my person but I can sure as hell shoo you away without firing a shot. That's me making you so 'uncomfortable' you might shit yourself.

Jesus, I hope you don't own any guns because you're stupid as fuck and also have 0 sense of humor. You'd blow a comedian's head clean off cause he joked about coming at you at an open mic.

yes if there is a good reason you can.... but you still gotta get the states to agree... and there are too many that won't.... and I'm glad for that... but now you need to tell me how my "logic make no sense" its actually in the constitution that to change the constitution you need to amend it. oh and it not paranoid if the leftwingers and rightwingers have stated that very thing. I'm sorry to tell you this but hate speech as much a i find it reprehensible is still protected. when that stops your response could land YOU in jail.

Aren't the laws against convicted felons owning fire arms unconstitutional because its infringjng?

My god, even slowing it down, you can't seem to get it.
My Clinton reference to compromise had NOTHING to do with guns.
It was about his ability to deal with the opposing party in congress and get things NOT GUN RELATED done.
I know you can read, pretty sure you cant comprehend what you read

meh.... technically convicted felons arn't citizens anymore... so no

you sound like a butthurt child user. I'm sowwy I called you a doof and an eastern steppe person! Wah. I couldn't even understand half your post.
>but...
what? but, what?

If the slippery slope argument applies to gun classification, gun owners will truly not know their shit then and the opportunity to stop an overbearing confiscation effort will be perpetuated against a population that's lost its merit to resist it. Again, if your shit's getting confiscated you shouldn't trust that government. That's the red flag right there, don't get pissy at me because other governments have succeeded there.

>ban wouldn't work
Once we stop making a certain set of guns and we stop making parts so they cant be rebuilt, those set of guns will become less available.
As long as the set of less available guns are also the most deadly guns then less of them will be used.

Also note, the assault weapons ban didn't work because:
The report also concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," since millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines manufactured prior to the ban had been exempted and would thus be in circulation for years following the ban's implementation.

>My Clinton reference to compromise had NOTHING to do with guns.
Literally just acknowledged this:
>I brought up his signing that document

I drew a parallel that this was during a time where the parties could reach a middle ground on a topic so heated as this as well as others. This has nothing to do with your statement.

Jesus, I didn't mean to misrepresent you. Don't cut my dick off, maybe you're the one who misread a line or two.

>And no dude, the firearm doesn't come out the moment you actually have to defend yourself.
Yes. It. Does.
if you are "crawling though my window" I will draw my weapon ( yes I own more than a few, and have actually been trained by professionals to obtain my CCW)
with the intent to stop any threat to my or my familly's life(s).
Keep believing what you see on TV kiddo.
IE: rack the slide and the bad guy pisses himself and runs away.

smuggling...
black market...
people making their own guns...

Yes, user. Everyone is out to get you. Mm-hm. You're right, it's all true.

lol, GET HELP.

That's still less available

lol ok your looking for a fight not a discussion so as I said have a good night

lol what? seriously are you fucking with me? please tell me how you think that i think everyone is "out to get me"?

I'm familiar enough with the ban, please don't give me your footnotes on it assuming I don't understand.

A 'shortage' of anything firearm related in this country translates into a cost margin, not a real deficit. Manufacturers are clever and the market is huge already, wide enough to absorb limitations on import and manufacture.

I've wanted to imitate a cool early AR bushmaster for nostalgia and when I look for parts it becomes clear just how slick the workarounds on individual components were at the time.

The ban was engineered to fail if it didn't work and most of us knew it wouldn't hold any water.

Yes, and? Banning some types of guns will work about as well as banning some types of drugs. Creating more business opportunities for organized crime is not going to help anything.

By your logic a lot of illegal weapons should be legal. What I don't see is anyone using those other illegal weapons very often, because the government has made it harder to get. Just because it's still possible doesn't mean it should be legal.

It definitely reduces the accessibility of them. And the black market will 100% be a problem.

But lets be real as you said. Do you or anyone you know have an illegal firearm hook up? Much easier to produce hide and distribute baggies of meth. You can't really discreetly carry 5 grams of an AR 15 for example now can you?

Bro. I literally said
>my person
No fucking shit it's a defensive situation, I'm talking about the moment you come under direct imminent physical threat as an attacker or weapon is about to lunge towards you. Do I have to pull out a dictionary for you to understand what should be eminently obvious?

My point was: the gun comes out BEFORE this moment of imminent threat of bodily harm.
ffs man you're not the only one who owns a gun. What the fuck is with gun owners needing to jerk off over home defense scenarios to prove their worth?

You're agreeing with me but choosing to use a different word. Get it?
>yes I own more than a few, and have actually been trained by professionals to obtain my CCW
Nobody fucking cares, piss about it with your mates.
I don't give a fuck how you want to chitter about your masculine needs.

I'm looking for signs of fucking intelligence man, and you are not it.

No, that is not my "logic" at all.

I suggest you learn something about smuggling and black markets.

yes you literally can carry 5gs of most modern guns and hide it. Like the user said, do some real world research

Not really a valid response to those comments. Gotta go to far more extreme means to get smuggled goods and black markets..can get drugs in public.

I suggest you learn something about the size and suspicion of objects.

Oh boy I'm sure 5gs of AR 15 when you need the full 200 is such a threat discreetly. That's not a massive pain in the ass to do.

99 percent of people don't have access to a black market.

People won't ever acknowledge that they don't have access to the illegal alternatives they suggest

the point is this can be a legitimate smuggling tactic. the functional components can be smuggled and local workshops can produce the simpler, non load-bearing parts.

really basic stuff. and when you need an instrument to commit crimes, a bit of time and a supply chain is not a 'massive pain in the ass'

Learning more was just a suggestion. I do believe it works better than making up fiction, however.

You 100% can subtley produce the parts. No denial there. But the need to go piece by piece undeniably slows the process..while it won't 100% stop the preparation for a shooting, it makes it undeniably more difficult to achieve.

it's honestly a small slow push by many special interest groups and thinktanks over the last few decades basically since the 60's.

Hate to say it but it's basically motivated Zionist, globalist interests. Yes I know it's a meme and provocative generally to say but do a TON of research and really look in the right places and it's all there and fairly obvious.

It likely won't happen for another 30 to 50 years, but it's pretty scary how fast NZ turned over. Likely a test.

America is truly one of the largest threats though to this, the government as it stands now would NOT WIN at all any sort of move. The pentagon recently released information on this and have said it would be a nightmare that would backfire.

the irony is you can literally buy weapons in public in most states.
Guns aren't drugs. drugs are bought constantly and street drug trade subsists on the flow new customers which must be accessed in person. when that option isn't available, drug users seek it out instead. that's how illegal firearms work; you seek it out. the punishment for illegal weapons far outweighs the punishment for what a block dealer carries.

Exactly so seeking out someone to provide you a gun is a hassle without a direct black market hookup. And unless you have a street level thug who stumbled on some good shit, gangs won't usually sell weapons to randoms not associated with them, Because they don't want you bringing heat to them if its ever traced back.

This, except the left will want Mr. FBI to check user's voter registration and have at least one woman make the final approval

Attached: isoJ0T0.jpg (596x412, 64K)

Please tell me this is taken while the pistol is cycling and that she isn't threatening me with a pistol while the slide is open

Attached: 1567052290884.jpg (219x187, 11K)

but... that's not how this works. You don't wait for a gun to 'trickle in.' the guns will be there when you need them, just not in walmart gun racks. they'll be in clandestine shops and not in small quantity. you're the criminal, not the smuggler.

Brah its a magic pistol

But you have to be able to carry them more subtley and stash them more subtlety which is the issue. Subtlety of things of size.

No the *black market* guns you hear about always involve a legally sellable gun but transferred to someone who shouldn't have it.

Its super hard to get your hands on illegal weapons and my guess of 99 percent of people with no access is actually conservative.

People seem to think that criminals just want to sell you fucking guns. The harder shit is to get a hold of, the more anal they are about shit.

if all guns were illegal you would more likely have this happen:

>walk up to shady dude to see his wares
>"got a 17 rounder for me today papi?"
>"do I know you?"
>"charlie said you can hook it up with some blued steel"
>"charlie's right. it's 12k"
>"no problem."
>"leave it under x at x at x o'clock and we'll be there. don't pick up until we're gone."
>"later."

just like a drug drop, it's all word of mouth and no one gets traced. you get a gun and not even charlie knows where from, because even if he knows you bought it he doesn't know the minion's name or if it's even the same minion he bought his lewis gun with.

again it's basic stuff. illegal goods are pretty streamlined

...but you're prepared to kill someone, not smoke a doobie. it's just part of planning. plenty of places to hide a gun for years until it's needed. if you're carrying it day to day you're asking to get caught.

And then if that gun is used, assuming you actually got it in the first place because they are physically bulkier than drugs, if its used in a crime, the law enforcement generally have an idea of potential sources. Guns don't just magically appear.

Absolutely. But that need for long term subtlety and digression , And the increased difficulty to acquire it, reduces likelihood. And also sellers of certain types of weapon would be limited.

you're saying they know what door to beat down and can get a warrant after convincing a judge based on a shooting in the area?
that's fantasy. if they suspect a clandestine headquarters a local crime will not trigger that response.
we can talk about hypotheticals all night but this exact same system is in place for a multitude of other goods from actual guns to drugs to cars to phones to data and crime finds effective ways to enterprise in each case.

Drugs are easier to cook. And if they have a suspected source for weapons,
Let's say assault weapons, they check it out. Not break down doors. And those sources tend to be fucking careful not to stick their necks out because they don't want to stand out and draw attention.

likelihood of spur crimes or first time acts of anger? sure. premeditated crime? not likely. gang crimes? absolutely not.

Increased difficulty to acquire will slow shit down on most facets. Not gangs though, that shitll take time. It'll make premeditated shit harder. Not eliminate it. Just make it more difficult to achieve.

you're narrowing the conversation to unrealistic expectations. most drugs are not 'cooked' in home labs. those that are are in reality easier to trace through precursor material sales. all you need to produce an automatic weapon is a lathe and bar steel. even better if you have access to parts, but if not it's not a big deal.

Absolutely you can produce them. But on a larger scale there tends to be limited sources. Those sources because they are limited hate attracting attention.

criminals already buy black market weapons to perform premeditated crimes. if you buy a gun at a store and commit a crime with it they will be able to trace it back to you provided they have the weapon. black markets guns are already there and they don't face the issues you describe to make them non viable.

The harder a gun is for a store to source, Harder for black market. Increase their difficulty, they tend to not want to be caught

no. my uncle phil can go rebellious and turn out submachine guns weekly if he has a gunsmithing guidebook (there are several just for this purpose) and spare stock. this is why weapon bans are notoriously difficult to administer, because you have to ban the knowledge of gunsmithing to execute them effectively

Oh so he has ease of access to materials and a discrete location to manufacture, store, And transfer?

Then no he can't..he can produce a few.

No.
Democrats want to ban certain types of guns, and levvy requirements of some sort on the ownership of other guns. Like mandatory gun handling courses, psychological evaluations, background checks to weed out criminals etc.

this is circular logic now. the guns will always be there and they will always be produced continually. all I get out of your points is that criminals will be more careful, get caught less, and do more damage per crime. Doesn't seem to outweigh the disadvantage of most homeowners not being able to defend themselves against these crimes.

When that drone comes 10 km over your head and snipes you in the neck you'll sure be glad you have a semi automatic rifle to revolt with.

The guns will definitely be available. But reduced production limits the numbers. Sources being careful about providing means as crimes are committed the numbers dry up. People can't openly flaunt them as easily. Its an over time solution. There is no immediate solution that isn't police state.

if he's a smith, most have a lathe or two in their garage. the supplies are 4.99$ a foot at home depot. will local enforcement be checking every garage? as far as distribution, that's an entire other discussion. this part is obviously harder but assuming he starts producing he probably has routes to distribute already established.

voter registration AND facebook comments history and the final approval made by at least one woman and a trans-woman as well

So he has to find a way to distribute without attracting attention.

Already a problem.

Then theres competition.

Another problem.

It goes on.

this is the whole point; reduced production of commercial guns reduces commercial access. this will not affect a criminal market.

I don't understand what you mean that fewer people will flaunt their guns. I don't know anyone besides dumb youtubers that flaunt guns.