Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon? I have no issue with people being able to buy assault weapons like the AR-15, but I do not think anyone on the street should be able to walk into the store and buy one.
What is the argument against having people get a license and go through a process? To be honest I feel much safer in Canada because any mentally ill person cannot simply walk into a store and buy an assault weapon to kill people with.
Thoughts? Thanks, I am genuinely trying to understand the pro gun argument on this issue. I am a libertarian myself but still think there should be some regulations to keep people safe.
>>79772608
The issue is that the government gets to decide whether you're fit to buy a gun.
At what point does someone become "mentally ill"?
What if they decided that if you don't trust the government you're mentally ill, because the government would never harm you and is there to protect you?
>>79772608
Every example in history of large-scale registration of firearms has resulted in confiscation of said firearms: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China.
Even in what previously passed for Western Democratic nation states where guns have since been restricted, registration lists have been used as a means to ultimately confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.
>>79772608
Because that won't really prevent mass shootings, ex Adam Lanza
I'm fine with CCW requiring a permit and being like a drivers lisense, because thats effectively what it is. Without one (drivers lisense or CCW permit) you can use your car/gun however you like on private property (yes you can driver a car without a lisense legally on private property as long as the owner consents alongside some other little exceptions) but you need a lisense/CCW permit to bring it out. If a CCW permit was as hard to get as a drivers lisense and regulated as such that'd be fine.
Why are liberals against the idea of people having to work for a living?
Why can't refugees be kept in camps and sent back when safe?
Why can't a man marry 2 women?
Why can Hillary break the law with impunity?
Why do we need to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns when criminals won't bother with it?
Why don't we trade this restriction with a repeal of a previous restriction? For instance, new automatics can be manufactured, but to get one of them or a semi-auto assault rifle, you have to do a shall issue registration?
Why do we care about rifles when handguns kill 20x as many people?
Why are you trolling?
>>79773283
Most of those are valid complaints but you sucessfully dodged the question better than Trump does
>What is the argument against having people get a license and go through a process?
When purchasing a weapon people go through a process called a background check. Felons and the mentally ill are barred from owning weapons and denied the sale.
>I have no issue with people being able to buy assault weapons like the AR-15
A pistol grip and foregrip don't make a normal rifle an assault rifle.
>I am a libertarian myself but
"I am a libertarian myself but I also want to restrict the law and remove any sort of due process."
>>79772608
Mentally ill people cannot walk into a store in america and buy a gun. NICS exists and has for decades. Do some basic research before making threads.
Also, the AR-15 is not an rifle. "Assault weapon" is a meaningless buzzword made to try to associate the AR-15 (and other semi-auto rifles) with actual assault rifles.
>>79772608
Because owning guns is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It would be the equivalent of needing a license to publish a newspaper, or go to church, or shitpost on a Laotian interior decorating forum.
Also, because the left has stated numerous times that their end goal is the complete removal of civilian gun ownership, it's not a stretch to think that they might abuse the ability to license gun ownership. Say for instance, you keep sending in your application for a gun license, but for some reason it keeps getting "lost" in the mail.
>>79772608
Because we've already "compromised" like 6 times in the last century and you faggy fucks don't ever quit. Plus a compromise requires the other party to give something up, which you haven't. So no. Go fuck yourself. No more. I hope you die to gun violence.
>>79773450
Negatory, my rebuttal was why don't we trade this restriction for repeal of auto ban.
Gun rights crew has compromised 20x, gun control crowd needs to start compromising. Giving in to someone who has a new demand every month is pointless, you'll soon find yourself a slave. If we give in on this, everyone knows it won't be the end of it.
>>79772608
>To be honest I feel much safer in Canada because any mentally ill person cannot simply walk into a store and buy an assault weapon to kill people with.
Sure they can, if they're not diagnosed yet, which sociopaths can reliably pull off.
t. omar
>licensing rights
Fuck you.
I just do not see an issue with society deciding that if you want to get a weapon you should be required to at least have a license. This makes it so that any random dude on the street cannot wake up and decide to go on a kill spree. With multiculturalism and more Muslims you are going to have to figure out a solution to this problem one way or another. I just don't understand why people have an issue with this. At some point the option will be to decide between a full out ban or some common sense solutions.
I've never heard one person in Canada complain about having to get a license to operate a firearm.
>>79772608
>To be honest I feel much safer in Canada because any mentally ill person cannot simply walk into a store and buy an assault weapon to kill people with
Do you honestly think we don't have that in America?
And stop calling it "assault weapon". That's a bullshit term invented by braindead liberals who know nothing about firearms. An AR 15 is a semiautomatic firearm like literally every other modern gun on the market today.
>>79773792
The question was why you oppose requiring a permit to own a gun,
When you get a license you're getting permission. If you have a right you don't need permission to exercise it
Do you understand English?
If you are a big gun advocate you should also be in favor of measures that promote gun safety. Not one person here wants to take your guns. It just doesn't make sense in an increasingly diverse society that Muhammed can go to the gun store and purchase an assault weapon and kill a bunch of people. It will never hold up long term your second amendment as it stands does not work for today's society.
>>79772608
Because I'm not a cuck who thinks the government gets to dictate who can and cannot exercise a fundamental human right.
>>79774030
I don't need a permit to exercise my 1st amendment rights, why do I need one to exercise my 2nd amendment rights?
Criminals don't need permits to carry guns, why do I?
>>79774030
And that's the answer, I oppose any new gun control law out of common sense. Give a little and you may get a little. Try to take what little is left and you get nothing.
If you can't understand how this is an answer to the question, you're fucking stupid.
>>79772608
i have multiple issues with requiring free citizens to obtain permission to exercise a constitutional guaranteed right. the first that comes to mind is addressed in the first sentence i wrote. a second issue is that such a system would place a monetary obstruction to exercising ones second amendment right. a third issue is that government run systems are regularly abused and perform their intended task slowly, expensively, and ineffectively. i can keep going, but i won't. i have an independence day party to get ready for.
>>79773928
>I've never heard one person in Canada complain about having to get a license to operate a firearm.
Now you have.
>>79773928
>This makes it so that any random dude on the street cannot wake up and decide to go on a kill spree.
That makes sense. It's not like there's an illegal arms trade not subject to your licenses.
>>79772608
>Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon? I have no issue with people being able to buy assault weapons like the AR-15, but I do not think anyone on the street should be able to walk into the store and buy one.
I agree, which is why not anyone can buy an AR-15. You have to have up-to-date residence info and pass a background check.
Now you may be saying "that's what I meant to say..." but people who push for gun control always fudge these facts, willingly or unwillingly, to make it seem like it's easier than it is to get a gun.
>What is the argument against having people get a license and go through a process? To be honest I feel much safer in Canada because any mentally ill person cannot simply walk into a store and buy an assault weapon to kill people with.
A mentally ill person also can't buy an assault weapon in the US. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
>11 f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective
(which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been
committed to a mental institution?
If you lie, that's a crime too.
>Thoughts? Thanks, I am genuinely trying to understand the pro gun argument on this issue. I am a libertarian myself but still think there should be some regulations to keep people safe.
My point is that the legislation that always gets talked about DOES NOT SOLVE BIG PROBLEMS. The FBI always finds pistols are the most common firearm used in homicides, and that gangs are the most common perpetrators of homicides. Why not propose legislation on more severe penalties for illegal gun possessions, do something serious about stopping gangs, etc...
![[DEEP CONFUSION].gif](https://i.imgur.com/sNuVfFa.gif "[DEEP CONFUSION].gif")
>>79773931
>presses the .38 button
>a Browning Hi-Power comes out
>>79773928
>I just do not see an issue with society deciding that if you want to get a weapon you should be required to at least have a license
Because you should not be required to spend extra time and money to exercise the basic right to purchase the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property. Additionally, because, as seen in much of western europe, once you give the government the power not to deny the right to specific individuals but deny it to EVERYONE and only specifically give those rights back, they can easily make the system so expensive and impractical that you essentially make gun ownership impossible for most people without ever having to formally ban gun ownership entirely.
>I've never heard one person in Canada complain about having to get a license to operate a firearm.
There are some that do. Obviously less than those who would oppose such an idea in america, but that's because we have less shitty leftist cucks per capita, and also because your system has been in place for many years, a lot of people literally can't remember back before it was in place.
>>79774509
>not knowing about based .38 Super
>>79773568
>Also, the AR-15 is not an rifle
Not trying to be a pedant, but did you accidentally a word, because it very clearly is a rifle.
>>79774509
"Damn, Timmy just got the Bersa Thunder too!"
>>79772608
>Why are you against consenting gay people doing things in the privacy of their own home?
I'm not...
>Why are you against gay people having domestic partnerships?
I'm not, and it's a slippery slope into pretending these people are married, but okay I guess I'll be a nice guy and pretend to be okay with this degeneracy
>Why are you against gay marriage?
Because marriage is between a man and a women, and I think its a slippery slope, but okay I can pretend that this is okay
>Why are you against pride parades where 'men' prance around like retards in speedos showing off their bare bodies to children on the street
Because children shouldn't see that shit, and we shouldn't be celebrating pride in one's own mental illness, and AGAIN slippery slope
>Why don't you like that the cartoons your children watch have a bunch of gay characters?
>What is your problem against suing christian bakers, forcing them to make sinful degenerate wedding cakes for two fruits with mental illnesses?
>Why don't you want old perverted men to put on wigs and be free to go into the same restroom your 5 year old daughter uses?
So to answer your question OP, its a slippery slope giving up gun rights, because eventually the left will stop targetting """"((((ASSAULT))))""""" rifles and will instead want to impose a waiting period to buy a kitchen knife.
I know people are really emotionally charged about this issue but you can't tell me with a straight face that it makes sense anyone can acquire an AR-15 without any type of process. You either need to make these concessions or these weapons will be fully banned. Pick one.
>>79774660
an assault rifle. My apologies. Reading the word "assault weapon" gave me an aneurysm and I skipped a word
>>79774495
>26 since 9/11
Except 50 died in pulse, so your numbers are an obvious fake.
>>79772608
I'm all for talking about common sense gun laws, but I'm also for repealing the stupid shit that we know doesn't work first.
>>79774787
>You either need to make these concessions or these weapons will be fully banned.
>EITHER FACE A FULL BAN AGAINST GUNS OR MAKE CONCESSIONS NOW! FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER CONCESSION NEXT YEAR! AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL THEY'RE FULLY BANNED ANYWAY :^)
dude weed lmao
>>79774787
What do you mean any type of process?
>>79774848
No worries! I know how you feel... Happy 4th, brother
>>79772608
Get raped, shall not be infringed. A licence is an infringement
>>79772608
>I do not think anyone on the street should be able to walk into the store and buy one.
I don't think people that can't be trusted with a rifle should be free to walk on a street.
Why do we let dangerous people walk free?
>>79774909
Because there's no way the image couldn't include 2016, right?
>implying Pulse wasn't a false flag anyway
>>79774787
READ THE THREAD
YOU CANNOT BUY AN AR-15 OR ANY OTHER FIREARM IN AMERICA FROM ANY LEGAL STORE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH NICS, THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM, WHICH PROHIBITS FELONS AND THOSE DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS.
And yes, mass shootings can be done by people who aren't documented felons or mentally ill. But guess what, these same people can get your stupid license! Or just buy a gun illegally from a straw purchaser or unlicensed gun seller!
>>79775314
So then what you are suggesting is that no private sales can take place?
Whenever I read these threads it always feels like the lefties deliberately ignore the facts they're presented and choose to say, "but how do we stop gun crimes without banning guns." Like they always conveniently forget that criminals are criminals because they don't adhere to the law.
>>79772608
>assault weapons like the AR-15
Get better at shilling you beak nosed cunt
>>79772608
Gun control laws have no measurable benefit and both the state governments and the Federal government are known to abuse licensing power. MLK himself couldn't get a conceal carry license.
>Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon?
Personally I don't think it's an issue if the country has a relatively small pool of firearms in public hands already. However, in the US, South Africa, Serbia, places like that it's pointless. All you're doing is inconveniencing law abiding people. Licences don't stop people from committing crimes, especially when you have more guns than people.
For instance, I have a PPW. I carry it every time I'm at work and every time I leave the house. The only time I'm not carrying it is when I'm in the airport. I do not enjoy carrying it. I enjoy shooting on a recreational basis and I spent 12 years in the Infantry, but I do not really enjoy carrying a sidearm on me. I've got it due to my job, but I still have to go through the licencing motions. It's viewed as necessary.
What I'm driving at here is that the person who is likely to ambush me or attempt to kidnap me, which isn't unknown in Northern Ireland, is never going to be carrying a licenced firearm. He doesn't play by the rules. By that standard I'm already off to a bad start. The criminals, by virtue of being criminals, don't care about the licencing process or correct use of a sidearm.
Why make the process any harder for people who abide by the law?
>>79775314
Even if this is true, you forgot to mention the gun show loophole and private sales.
>>79772608
Guns without licenses (like a police badge) are not permitted on public property
just as cars without licenses are not permitted on public roads
I just think it's common sense. Want a gun? Get a license. Again, making a concession on common sense issues by no means you are not going to be able to purchase your guns.
>>79776011
>I just think it's common sense. Want a gun? Get a license. Again, making a concession on common sense issues by no means you are not going to be able to purchase your guns.
Should people that want to vote need a license?
>>79775815
Everyone mentions the gun show loophole that doesn't exist. You still have to call the instant background check line. If you don't it's a felony.
>>79776011
It would be "common sense" if we were starting from day zero and the firearm was invented 24 hours ago.
It wasn't, we aren't, so it isn't.
>>79772608
Fuck off
>>79776011
>common sense issues
You can't just define your own opinions as "common sense" and imply people who disagree with you lack common sense libshitter.
If you think everyone should need a license then explain why and how it would actually help in real life situations. What would you achieve with it? Most of these calls for regulations is just doing something for the sake of doing it, it actually has no positive effect.
Why do you want to restrict freedom if you can't actually prove that it would have positive effects? Freedom isn't free leaf.
>>79772608
what happens when political dissidents get labeled as """terrorists""" or """mentally unwell""" and only those chosen by the people in power are allowed to be armed because of what once started as an attempt to license and regulate something that should not be infringed?
hmmm, really makes you think doesn't it
>>79776011
OP, I compiled this together for people like you, who do not fully understand the viewpoints of gun owners.
https://imgur.com/a/b7HSM
I used to be anti-gun; I'm not now.
>>79776011
Why is it all of the sudden guns are now a problem for America?
>>79772836
How about making the requirement to have no criminal record? Iirc there is a correlation between IQ and criminality so this way we can build up a good system which empowers the good people while punishing the bad guys.
>>79776800
>How about making the requirement to have no criminal record?
Felons already can't legally buy guns. Is this how retarded gun grabbers are that they ask for laws that already exist?
>>79774495
>be american
>died to my chair falling on top of me
>>79776800
How about, once you've been released from jail, you have the option of going to court, as many times as you want, to regain your full rights instead of having them forever stripped from you for the rest of your life, even though you are no longer serving time in jail?
>>79776800
>How about making the requirement to have no criminal record?
We already fucking have that retard
>>79776800
That's how it works currently. If you're a convicted felon you can't own guns, if you try to buy one they'll deny you after they run a background check and see you have a record.
I think felons can't legally operate firearms even if it's not their own either.
Of course following the law isn't criminals strong suit.
>>79773931
Wrong.
"assault weapon" was a term invented by the gun industry
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/4o4h65/from_the_archives_q_who_came_up_with_the_term/
>>79772608
>Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon?
Waste of taxpayer money and is unconstitutional bullshit that won't actually do anything but make a right legally a privilege.
my gun license is the second amendment if you don't like it get a Delorean set the date for December 15, 1791 and take it up with them.
>>79777126
>/r/GunsAreCool
wew lad
im a sociopath, you think lying and manipulation to bypass this system would be hard?
>>79776921
>>79777006
>>79777115
>Wasn't even fishing for so many (you)s
My point was that there is a rigorous way of drawing the line. It wasn't my intention to imply this not how it is done in america.
>>79776993
It's debatable if simply serving jail time is a effective rehabilitation program, but I see your point.
>OP keeps getting shut down
>Continues to keep posting the same dumb argument and ignoring every post
Why are you here?
>>79777126
>posts antigun subreddit
>posts Horsey
100% B8
>>79777163
>my gun license is the second amendment
The second amendment only recognizes a right that already exist and puts legal protections on said right against government infringement
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GXVG2oaJ1c0
>>79777357
Yeah, but that's exactly how it works in america and it sure as hell doesn't prevent criminals from getting guns. I think it makes total sense that convicted felons shouldn't be able to buy guns but we have to realize that they'll get them anyways.
So if the goal is to prevent criminals from getting guns simply making it illegal won't work. That's the problem with gun laws, they'll punish law abiding citizen but not affect criminals in the slightest.
Just like the EU ban for semi autos. Doesn't affect crime or terrorism in any way, it only means that they ban sport and hunting weapons that normal people enjoy.
>>79772608
>assault weapon
Triggered.
>>79772608
What is the argument? Respect for the people's rights. I don't demand you have to go to the government to get a permit/license before going online where you could sell information on troop locations and activity at various military bases in your locale.
Further more look at actual statistics. Rifles of any sort are used in an immeasurably small amount of homicides yearly, while handguns are used in 45x more homicides yet no one complains about handguns.
The mentally ill can't buy guns, they would be declined on their NICS check when trying to buy one.
>>79777679
>I think it makes total sense that convicted felons shouldn't be able to buy guns
Nah fuck that
If you're so bad as to not be able to legally exercise all of your rights then you shouldn't be out of prison.
Fuck this creating of a whole permanent group of second class citizens.
Besides there are assloads of felons who have never done anything violent to another person in their lives stripped of their rights for life
>>79775815
THe "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. Gun shows are run by FFL holders who use nics
What you're calling for is regulation of private sales. Regulation that is impossible given that the sales are, you know, private
>>79777679
>So if the goal is to prevent criminals from getting guns simply making it illegal won't work.
I can see how we ought to strive to minimize the possibility for criminals to be armed as much as possible, but you cannot simply cure criminality by having a good legislation.
>>79778019
This
If you paid your debt to society you should have all your rights restored, not be punished for life. If you can't be trusted with a firearm you should not be out on the streets.
>>79773928
In America, we have the right to own guns, and we have the right to a press free from governmental prior restraint.
Maybe Canadians don't complain about their lack of freedom. Maybe they think it's a good trade.
Whatever, it's not my business to tell you how to run your society. It's stable and it works for you.
The US has been stable with it's balance of rights, also. The problem is when monarchists, socialists, fascists, etc come over and want our hundreds of millions of people to swap -- immediately -- a basic right away, for moonshine and promises, just because some tiny dot in Europe with a decades-old constitution says it seems to be working well for them.
Those people aren't just un-American, but anti-American and have no place in a free society.
>>79775815
>Less than 2% of criminals got firearms rom gunshows before background checks were even mandatory for gun dealers
Shut up faggot
>>79772608
>What is the argument against having people get a license and go through a process?
First, the second amendment and constitution in general
Second, I don't need a reason to be allowed to do something. You need a reason to prevent people from being allowed to do something, and that's not a thing you have.
>>79778190
Likewise for the dangerously mentally ill. If someone is too dangerous to handle a firearm, they're too dangerous to drive a car or walk on our sidewalks.
>>79775815
There is no gunshow loophole. Every dealer at a gun show has to go through a background check for every buyer.
And private sales are a means for people to do what they will with their own property that they paid for without having the government's permission.
Besides, how do you go about regulating and enforcing private sales?
>>79778245
Why do you americans not just mention the fact that the guns per 100 people count negatively correlates with the firearm related homicide rate?
>>79778332
With laws.
>>79772608
What if I told you that everything you've been told about God-fearing, red-blooded Americans is a lie?
>>79778458
It doesn't. It does negatively correlate with total murder but they don't care, because facts don't matter to them, feelings do
>>79778458
>Firearm related x
Someone failed highschool stats class
Look up the definition of cherrypicking and how it invalidates stats.
See
>>79776669
>>79778529
OK. *poof* Private sales are now outlawed
Do you really think that's going to stop Tyrone from buying a stolen gun from Jamal in his car?
They'll now willingly go to a gun store for a background check they know they can't pass?
Or do you think it will only impact Bob down the street who now has to drive across town and pay extra money to have the government' s cock up his ass to have a background check to sell a gun to his son?
And for what? Because criminals are committing crimes yet he's not?
C'mon you can't be this dense
>>79774909
Still not enough of a problem to warrant the proposed overreactions.
We are still dealing with the knee jerk over reactions, eg the patriot act, after 911.
Back in the 1980s there were many highjackings, and I could still carry a pocket knife and a tube of toothpaste on an air plane. Because people weren't zero-tolerance cowards then.
Even Gary Johnson sides with the democrats on these issues. Republicans have been bought off by special interest groups like the NRA for a very long time.
>>79778529
Pfffffft hahahhahahahhhahahahahhahhahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
With laws he said
Whooo booy he really thought that one through.
We should probably make murder against the law as well.
>>79778529
kek
Syed Farouk's friend gave him the guns used in San Bernardino
Private transfers are illegal in CA
>>79778529
Laws don't enforce themselves. How do you stop tyrone from selling leshawn a hi point with his kilo of dope?
>>79778772
>cherrypicking
How is this a fallacy in this case. Literally all graphs in that list show that are only weak correlations between X and guns per 100.
>>79775103
This. Just put everyone who might be a danger on a "no walk" watch list and keep 'em under house arrest.
Everyone else can drive a car, read a book, buy a gun, and vote, since we know they are perfectly safe to society.
>>79772608
What problem is a gun license going to solve exactly?
>>79772608
Basically you're giving the government an arbitrary method of denying people a fundamental liberty.
>>79778933
>Gary Johnson sides with the democrats on these issues
Who gives a fuck? He's been anti gun for ages
And you think the NRA is really that well funded compared to the anti gun lobbyists? And why are they so vilified by you people? Literally every industry in the world has lobbyists, why is the NRA so bad?
>>79778933
>NRA spending meme
>>79778933
That's because Gary Johnson is a sack of shit and not even remotely a libertarian.
He's a weedlord who thinks forcing an open border policy on millions of Americans is the "libertarian" thing to do.
Johnson is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
http://libertyhangout.org/2016/05/gary-johnson-shoots-himself-in-the-foot-throws-out-austin-petersens-gun/
>>79772608
>I have no issue with people being able to buy assault weapons like the AR-15, but I do not think anyone on the street should be able to walk into the store and buy one.
you can't get those in Canada :^)
Nobody will be denied any liberty. It's just common sense to go through a process for a gun license if you want to purchase assault weapons. We don't have this issue in Canada because we chose to take a logical approach to how firearms are purchased and sold. It makes me proud to be Canadian.
>>79772608
It should be mandatory that everyone owns a gun.
>>79778933
>Even Gary Johnson sides with the democrats on these issues
Nice appeal to authority but Johnson being retard just means he's going to lose votes not be less wrong because he's pandering for the retarded Bernie Sanders base.
> like the NRA for a very long time.
Oohh yeah that around 150k they spend a year on lobbying sure has paid off all of the Republican Congress.
Yup sure convinced me
Couldn't have anything to do with the millions of Americans that would vote out politicians if they were retarded enough to commit political suicide and be antigun while representing progun regions
>>79776757
Looks to me like Progressivism causes homicides.
>>79772608
license = registration = infringement
>>79772608
>Leaf
Shall
not
be
infringed.
How difficult is that to grasp? Four words so simple that even a Canadian should be able to understand them.
>>79779017
>How is this a fallacy in this case
Singling out "gun crime/homicide/deaths"
Is basic cherrypicking avoiding all other crime and acting as if getting stabbed or beaten to death is somehow not as bad as getting shot
Same argument you could use against a voting license, a speech license, etc.
It sets up a barrier that makes it more difficult for people to exercise their most fundamental constitutional rights.
>>79779253
Rifles, all of them, kill less than 300 people a year in the entire US. Assault weapons are a small subset of that.
You're trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
>>79779253
Well you don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms, so it makes sense for you to need permission for that.
And one of the reasons you don't have as big a gun problem in Canada is less niggers.
So if you're so proud to be Canadian piss off back there and enjoy your ice and snow
>>79779253
>Nobody will be denied any liberty
See
>>79777152
>>79779253
There's no "common sense" in putting a fundamental right to self defense behind a paywall. Especially when there's no evidence to suggest it would help anything
>>79779490
Let me rephrase that. How is cherry-picking apples from a apple tree a fallacy? Genuinely curious.
>>79779077
more taxes for the government.
regular registration of firearms
>>79779253
>>79779538
And why do you think "assault weapons" are such a big problem in America?
The founding fathers came up with the constitution when all they had were low grade muskets. They did not anticipate Muslims would be able to get their hands on violent assault weapons at their corner store no questions asked.
Like I said, there will come a time when the option is to choose between banning the AR-15 or coming up with some solutions. If you are a law abiding citizen you will still be able to get your weapons. Nobody wants that to go away. Making concessions does not mean you are giving up any rights, but you are acknowledging that gun safety is more important than easy access. Honestly more gun owners are in favor of enhanced background checks and measures to make sure the bad guys don't get guns. You guys need to get red pilled on the NRA.
>>79779253
>We don't have this issue in Canada because we chose to take a logical approach to how firearms are purchased and sold.
Gun control didn't do anything in Canada except make retards have an imaginary delusion of being safer and infringing on the human rights of every Canadian.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/The-Failure-of-Canadian-Gun-Control.htm
>>79779723
Low quality bait, so I'll sage this thread.
>>79779662
>How is cherry-picking apples from a apple tree a fallacy
Because when you're talking about crime and analyzing crime stats picking out one subset of crime is being deliberately manipulative with the data.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
>>79779723
why does the AR-15 rustle your jimmies when handguns kill an overwhelmingly greater percentage?
>>79779723
>muskets
Must we go through this every time?
>Honestly more gun owners are in favor of enhanced background checks and measures to make sure the bad guys don't get guns
Says who?
>>79779253
>We don't have this issue in Canada because we chose to take a logical approach to how firearms are purchased and sold.
If you consider the RCMP sending every weapon to a team in a lab with blank checks to convert aforementioned weapon into an automatic (and therefore prohibited) and then claim that any joe with a steel mill can do the same as a logical approach, then sure.
>>79779723
>If keep deluding myself I won't be wrong
>>79772608
Group A and Group B exist.
For centuries, Group A has had a monopoly on the use of force. With this monopoly on force, Group A has been total dickheads to Group B -- they forcefully rob and exploit Group B without any possibility of opposition.
One day, people in Group B get really, REALLY mad and violently overthrow Group A. When the dust settles, people in Group B decides that, from then on, both Group A and Group B would be able to use unregulated force to keep a power balance.
200+ years later, some retards come along and say that Group A -- historically the biggest dicks in the history of mankind -- should be able to regulated, dictate, and control what type of weapons Group B should get access to.
Finally, you come along and ask why people in Group B may be against this.
>TLDR: you're putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, retard
>>79772608
Requiring a license or permit reduces the right to a privilege.
>>79779944
But all crime X per guns statistics show weak a correlation. Have you noticed that I am focusing on this fact and not that getting stabbed is worse or equally bad as being shot?
>>79779723
Rifles were used in the revolutionary war.
Semiauto and gattling gun like weapons existed when the constitution was drafted
The second ammendment also covered full sized canons, which were used legally on civilian ships
Your proposal would not make it harder for would be terrorists or other mass murderers from obtaining any sort of firearm, nor would they improve "gun safety" in any interpretation
>>79772608
Replace guns with free speech and you'll find your answer:
>Why are you against the government limiting some speech? Nobody needs to call anyone else mean names
>What's wrong with a free speech registry? Surely you're not in favor of criminals having the ability to speak completely freely! They could share ideas that could get people killed!
>Why don't we just have some sort of registry for people who choose to be outspoken on controversial political topics? I see nothing wrong with this!
It's pointless, that's why.
There is no such thing as a retarded mass shooter with the down or something.
These killers aren't just retards, they are psychos, they go under the radar.
They live near us, or even closer.
The idea that you're going to stop a social chameleon from getting a gun is lunacy in itself.
>>79780077
This ends the gun debate.
>>79779723
you dont think that the founding fathers were smart enough to realize that weapons technology would continue to advance??
>>79780346
But this is literally what the antigun liberals want though...
>>79772608
>have the right to fight a government that turns tyrannical
>want the said possible tyrannical government restrict access to arms
Yeah. That makes sense.
>>79780660
>>79780768
>people founding a new country anticipate potential tyranny by govt in future
>liberals can't wrap their heads around this
>>79772608
>>i feel safer in canada
Stay there
>>79780160
>But all crime X per guns statistics show weak a correlation
And there is absolutely no correlation when you don't cherrypicking and actually work the stats in a non fallacious manner.
>>79780954
You didn't disprove what the guy said
>>79780458
Why does it have the Sargon logo? Does Ben do cartoons by commission now?
>>79781442
What is there to disprove?
>>79781442
Maybe because the people who wrote the constitution had just rebelled against a tyrannical government?
>>79772608
>Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon?
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>79772608
>I feel much safer in Canada because any mentally ill person cannot simply walk into a store and buy an assault weapon to kill people with
Odd, the mentally ill have a way lower incidence of homicide than the general public.
Are you sure you've checked the facts?
Because to an educated person on the subject, you seem ignorant.
>>79781442
The idea is that if a government becomes tyrannical it deserves to be overthrown. So they built in the safeguard that the people should be armed in case that happens.
Because the slippery slope exists. After the law OP proposes is put in place there will still be more shootings because surprise surprise criminals don't give a fuck about laws. This will prompt libfags to introduce more """""common sense""""" gun control laws until we end up cucked to death like England, where you have to be over 18 to buy forks.
You can't give an inch to gun grabbers. Nothing we agree to will ever please them so fuck 'em, don't give them anything. They will always come back to further erode your rights. Their ultimate goal is the complete disarmament of private citizens.
>>79781442
>thinks just because his shit-ass euronigger govt is crooked that there aren't more intellectual, altruistic founding governors that want what's best for their people.
When the whole purpose of your revolution is genuine and not some proxy for big business or kike overlords it kinda makes sense that you'd want to assure it can always be an option if things get too bad.
>>79772608
>Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon?
Because you don't need permission to exercise your rights.
All the "muh gubbermint is coming for muh guns" conspiracy nuts are fucking retarded. Ignore them. The real answer, the only good answer, is that I (well, not me, but if I were American) have a right to bear arms and if you get in the way of it I'll fucking kill you.
Sadly Americans are fat pathetic cowards who won't defend their rights and instead retreat into ridiculous fallacious arguments.
>>79781512
Read again
>>79781560
In what way was British empire tyranical to the 13 colonies?
>>79781644
>The idea is that if a government becomes tyrannical it deserves to be overthrown.
It's exactly what the guy was asking. Why would a government build safeguards agaisnt itself?
>>79781644
>>79781795
>When the whole purpose of your revolution is genuine and not some proxy for big business or kike overlords
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>Americans actually believe this shit.
American exceptionalism
>>79782124
>Why would a government build safeguards agaisnt itself?
Because they actually care about the welfare of the people? If someone tries to corrupt the democracy and impose tyrannic laws they deserve to be overthrown. Like the EU should be.
>>79782124
>Why would a government build safeguards agaisnt itself?
Because America didn't want to turn into another monarchy or dictatorship, it wanted to be a nation truly of the people.
Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly, and for the same reason
>>79782124
>In what way was British empire tyranical to the 13 colonies?
Get a load of this tard.
On the 4th of July no less.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
>>79782124
>In what way was British empire tyrannical to the 13 colonies?
They have a giant list of shit in the declaration of independence.
>King refusing to Assent to Laws beneficial to the US.
>Forcing the government to assemble in the UK instead of US.
>Dissolved legislative bodies that disagreed with him
>Refused to resolve such bodies.
>Refused to pass naturalisation laws the US needed.
>Bribed judges.
>Military occupation without consent.
>Foreign military in charge of US.
>Not sentencing said foreign soldiers for crimes such as murder.
>Blocking trade with the rest of the world.
>Unconsentual taxation.
>Trying US criminals in England rather than the US.
Etc. etc.
>>79782124
>In what way was British empire tyranical to the 13 colonies?
No taxation without representation.
>>79772608
>licensing a right
get fucked
>>79782124
>In what way was British empire tyranical to the 13 colonies?
Why don't you read our Declaration of Independence? It lists out the reasons
The whole slippery slope thing is not an argument. If you have a law requiring bikers to wear helmets, that does not mean anyone is going to take away the bikes. It simply means that society concluded that there should be some safety precautions to make society better as a whole.
This is something that people do not understand. The role of government is to promote positive rights. Even Gary Johnson, the libertarian nominee in the US said that the government should support positive measures like planned parenthood. Not everything is black and white.
>>79772608
>assault weapons like the AR-15
but its not, assault weapons are full auto and used primary by the military or special police like SWAT or anti-terror squads
>>79783633
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>79772608
what do you think of having to have a government issued license to express your stupid ideas?
>>79784026
They already have that. It's called a gender studies degree.
>>79783633
Requiring people to wear helmets means that suddenly the Government knows what's best for you, and refuses to let you choose for yourself.
It's not an argument, Canada.
The role of the Government is not to GIVE or PROMOTE rights. It is simply there to make sure that your rights, given by NATURE'S GOD, aren't infringed upon. Anything beyond that is excessive and frankly an infringement of your rights.
If I can understand this, as a Norwegian on the other side of the World, then why can't you? You're much close to the US than I am.
>>79772608
HITLER TOOK THE GUNS STALIN TOOK THE GUNS
MAO TOOK THE GUNS
FIDEL CASTRO TOOK THE GUNS
HUGO CHAVEZ TOOK THE GUNS, AND I 'M HERE TO TELL YOU
1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!
>>79784480
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxSs73KzQfA
>>79772608
Friendly reminder that Canada has a licensing system and daily background checks while USA does not and with shotguns and rifles combined has a higher homicide rate than USA rifles.
>>79786318
Rofl
>>79772608
>What is the argument against having people get a license and go through a process?
SHALL
>>79772608
HOW DOES THIS STOP CRIMINALS?
>>79772608
It's a (((leaf)))
![1324273438040[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/HcATDPX.gif "1324273438040[1].gif")
>>79772608
There are already regulations you fucking twat stop giving in to the media fear mongering
>>79781442
There is nothing to disprove, it's a question.
>>79772608
>Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon?
"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me. I literally can't make it clearer by rephrasing it. They made it as clear as possible. Making it a crime to be armed under any circumstance is an infringement. If you make gun ownership a crime if you don't have the right paperwork, that's an infringement.
>>79772608
>>79772608
Do I need a free speech permit too? Words kill plenty of people, apparently suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US. Oh wait that doesn't solve anything does it..
>>79778529
a fucking leaf
>>79772608
I think that the main issue is not that there are really loose gun regulations in America, but moreso that there is a huge culture surrounding said guns. In Australia, everyone was pretty chill about much stricter gun regulations, because there wasn't a huge culture already surrounding guns. America can't transition smoothly into what Canada is simply with stricter regulations.
>>79772608
>Why are you against the idea of requiring people to acquire a gun license to purchase a weapon?
Because:
1) A thing you have to get a license to do isn't a right anymore, it's begging for permission. Right there, you've failed legal muster.
2) Historically, licensing schemes turn into vehicles for confiscation later.
3) It does nothing to prevent mentally ill people from getting guns. We already do background checks, remember? Most of the mass shootings you hear about, the person involved was not on record as mentally ill and would not have been caught by your hypothetical law.
In other words: It's illegal, it carries very real concerns, and accomplishes nothing. Any other questions?
Yeah I mean why not, I already got a spot in my wallet for my free speech license
>>79772608
>any mentally ill person cannot simply walk into a store and buy an assault weapon to kill people with.
To play the devil's advocate: what prevents someone from doing all of that and then becoming mentally ill?
>>79772608
Because the right to use deadly force to defend one's own life, family or property is necessary for the 'right to life' to have meaning beyond words on paper.
>>79772608
Do you honestly think that stops anyone?
Do you honestly think that someone who has enough sense to walk into a store to buy a gun can't or won't be able to get a gun?
By god you should look at the average driver on the road. I would rather we have less cars than guns.
>>79783633
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy, it's an implementation of a psychological bargaining technique known as the foot in the door method.
You stick your foot in that door, and you sell them some little innocuous thing, and now you've got'em hooked and the rest of what you try to sell comes across more easily.
Slippery slope functions the same way. Once you've allowed x, then x+1 becomes more palatable, and after that x+2, and pretty soon it's x+30 and you're wondering how the fuck you agreed to this shit in the first place
>>79772608
> ... I am genuinely trying to understand the pro gun argument on this issue. I am a libertarian myself but still think there should be some regulations to keep people safe.
> I am a libertarian
No you are not. Why is it you hillshills never do the minimal amount of research to sound like you're not full of shit?
