So let me get this straight. A hundred-million gun owners who haven't hurt anyone are supposed to give up their favorite hobby and means to protect themselves and their loved-ones because a handful of people choose to murder with guns? And these sociopathic murderers are supposed to suddenly become good citizens because of new laws?
How does the old saying go?
"Guns are fucking stupid and dangerous, and you're fucking retarded for having one you hick piece of shit."
Is that how it goes?
>>55339940
>>55339940
Well, what if I have three?
>assuming there is any reasoning behind it other than the govt wanting to militarily control the populace when the shit hits the fan
>>55339940
If you're 13, go back to your anime child.
>>55339940
You should tell someone holding a gun they're stupid and dangerous.
I doubt they will take them unless you have something that could kill 30 people in 10 seconds. I imagine they might be harder to get licensing or traffic them with any new legislation.
>>55340746
If you knew anything about firearms' mechanics, you would know that even 19th century guns were/are just as deadly as modern guns and that very little has improved in firearms technology since the 1930s. Should the gov't be banning the guns our great-grandfathers used?
>>55339830
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Liberals should be institutionalized, honestly.
>>55339830
The whole point of the 2nd amendment is not so you can arm yourself for hobby..
It's to put in the head of politician that they cannot trample our freedom without armed resistance. The specter of violence would be enough to keep the politician in check. As it turns out, we've lost our 2nd amendment right and with it... all the other rights that are protected by it.
>>55341605
You have a valid point. However:
1. My argument was meant to be a moral one, not a legal one. It therefore applies to all countries and time periods, whether they have a constitution or not.
2. The present government is far more tyrannical than the British government was in 1775, so where is the armed resistance? We already have the armed part, just no resistance.
>>55341964
We're not armed as well as we should be; the government doesn't fear us.
And probably the boiling frog analogy rings true. We didn't lose our rights all at once, it was a gradual decline and successive generations haven't cared or was successfully brainwashed.
>>55341267
Based John Browning
>>55342530
This.
Coachguns are still usefull.
God made some men bigger and stronger than others, Mr. Colt made them all Equal.
How can proponents of Equality overwhelmingly be against the most egalitarian method of self-defense ever invented? This really boggles my mind.
>>55340746
rapid fire machine guns were invented in the 19th century. We're barely allowed to have weapons that were invented in the mid/early 19th century.
Additionally, most bans are based on the weapons' aesthetics...
In CT, the bottom rifle (ooh, scary looking) is banned but the top rifle is allowed despite having the same caliber, firing power and functionality. These weapon bans are ridiculous.
>>55342961
oop forgot image
>>55341267
If they are capable of killing 30 people in 10 seconds, sure. There has to be an upper limit on what civilians can posses. It shouldn't be legal for Joe six pack to have mustard gas or anthrax either.
>>55339830
most of them aren't sociopaths. most of them are nigs, males mostly.
>>55339940
Here I thought it was "I don't think much of your opinion, but I'm glad you have a constitutional right to it."
Or is it "Good guy, bad guy, I'm the one with the gun"?
>>55343215
Nigs = emotionally stunted sociopaths, same fucking thing. If the EBT ever stopped running for a single week, you'd see just how lunatic they all are, and it would be glorious as their numbers halved within that time to put them at single-digit percentages of total US population once again. A man can dare to dream.
>>55343161
>It shouldn't be legal for Joe six pack to have mustard gas or anthrax either.
Those aren't arms. I'll tell you what. I'll accept a total ban on all crew served weapons. That good enough for you?
>>55343684
Don't give them an inch. NOT EVEN AN INCH!
>>55343684
No, I imagine lethal weapon legislation is better suited to places outside of pol.
>>55343811
that´s a pretty based line, did his father tell it to him?
>>55339830
I think this post is related to your point. Lots of charts and images attached.
>>55321012
Privilege some times looks like Ivy League School association, No Term Limits, Wealthy Family & Network privilege, Private Executive Privilege, older generation privilege, having a bank charter to create new money in new loans for Usury or working for a bank, or working in older business with a monopoly.
Think Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosey, John McCain, Mitch McConnell have a monopoly?
Think Ford & Chrysler have special privileges when small businesses are the core of the USA?
Think Wall Street Banks and Shadow Bankers have special advantages?
Think all wars are banker wars?
If Congress has deregulated to allow Globalism, but the men aged 25-55 are losing good jobs and employment while the prison population increases... what does that tell you about old guy monopoly, banker monopoly, corporation powers, lobby powers, money in politics, and how powers must be limited?
What and never a US National Referendum?
>>55343817
Well, you can try your best, but you have to understand that we've been winning. We dominate the state legislatures, we've won every significant battle taken to SCOTUS. We own the GOP. We own a significant percentage of local-level Democrats. We own a significant percentage of Democrats at the national level who come from pro-guns states. The US House and Senate fall over themselves to maintain good NRA ratings. We own the ground game, we bring more people to rallies, we write more letters, we make more calls, we send more e-mails, we're louder and more focused.
You can imagine that we're a bunch of rednecks, but at some point you have to wonder why we keep beating you. You have to ask yourself why we spend so little on lobbying. Otherwise, you'll just keep shaking your head and wondering why your legislation isn't going anywhere.
Maybe theres a compromise to be find. Maybe theres a trade to be made. Or you can keep demanding. I'm fine with things continuing as they have for the last two decades, are you?
>>55344571
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be free. I advocate living outside the law on this issue.
>>55341964
It is like mind control, prestidigitation, DC Spin, Propaganda, control over the data/info and publishing.
Is federal data on inflation rate of a basket of goods really applicable to health care, Defense Spending, Education Spending, Housing Costs, increases in utility costs, and higher property taxes. not to mention that USA as a nation has taken on huge credit/debt that will or is a huge drag on the Economy, Households, and Nation although somewhat hidden if financial ratings are kept high (financial ratings agencies are shit, wall street banks are shit, and the auditing is shit).
Inflation is waiting, just like bank recalls of loans and $600 Billion Bond Market is just around the corner or being kept quiet.
USA has an admitted $59 Trillion in total debt.
Your Question: Where is the Resistance?
USA is the only country it seems (maybe Switzerland) that could resist a call for Global Government, Global Currency, Global Religion, and empowerment of Global Corporations and Technocrats to Rule the USA.
It comes down to Education as the Communist have pointed out and the Right to Bear Arms.
This is not an Original Idea at all.
European, Latin American, and Asian Governments suppress gun ownership while advocating no limit Usury and power of banks to create new loans.
>>55345020
You'd be amazed how fast you move from outside to inside. I've lived my entire life in Chicago. I bought handguns when there was a ban, I carried when it was illegal, I didn't register when it was required. Now I have a carry permit, theres no handgun ban, and theres no registration. Today I have an AR thats illegal at least twice, but I've very little doubt that those laws will go down, too.
>>55344358
I think you misunderstood my position. I said quibbling about the exact limits of gun control in pol is pointless. The exact position would be arbitrary and pointless.
Also bragging about how your in tress dominate legislation sounds very jewish commrade.
>>55345594
I'm not very interested in how it sounds. My point is that gun owners, despite being reviled and caricatured as idiots, are amongst the most powerful lobby in this country. The other side can obsess over optics, we've got things to do.
>>55345182
I live in California. It's fucking ridiculous here. Still not as horrible as New York or Connecticut. But the politician scumbags are working day and night to disarm the populace.
>>55339830
No, you're supposed to give your rights away because it's 2015.
>>55343161
>There has to be an upper limit on what civilians can posses.
Why.
And why should the government be trusted with it if the citizenry are not?
>>55346007
It used to be ridiculous here. Then the litigation bills started piling up.
>>55344571
MUH DICK, FEED ME GUNZ
>>55346128
Again, people have qualms about unregulated distribution of lethal weapons. At least they do if they aren't being dogmatic.
Most folks accept that civilians are not allowed to operate fighter jets without regulation. Whether you like it or not there is an upper limit.
>>55340639
If they shot me just because I said that, then I'm definitely correct in believing they're stupid and dangerous.
>>55343811
>doing the bitch lean
randlet pls
>>55346606
>Most folks accept that civilians are not allowed to operate fighter jets without regulation.
Civilians can and do operate fighter jets without regulation. The limitations are
1. Prohibitive cost associated
2. Available air space that would be in compliance with noise ordinances that limit use of said aircraft
>Whether you like it or not there is an upper limit.
Not everything is regulated you fucking idiot. There are plenty of things that are not banned that you assume are. These laws do not exist because the de-facto nature of their limited access means that misuse of these items is non-existent. You don't need to regulate everything, because it's not feasible to use said things for nefarious purposes.
My underlying point had nothing to do with an upper limit. The point is: If you don't trust the average citizen to be armed, then trusting government to be armed is counter-intuitive. Because government is just a collection of average citizens who have been given titles, responsibilities, and access to large sums of money.
Trusting your neighbor should be no different than trusting your neighbor who happens to work for the government.
>>55346606
>Again, people have qualms about unregulated distribution of lethal weapons. At least they do if they aren't being dogmatic.
>unregulated distribution of lethal weapons
Not even a fucking thing in the US. Sorry Charlie, looks like you're the one being dogmatic here.
>>55346606
Jets are a poor example. I could spend a thousand hours in DCS and still not know how to properly fly an A10.
A gun is just a tube. You have no idea how absolutely simple they are. You have 300,000,000 countrymen and it takes a few months (sometimes weeks) before a shooting happens that isn't ghetto related where a sizable number of people are hurt. Firearms are not an issue to worry about.
>>55346913
If you are going to be this antagonistic about the very concept of law enforcement and regulation than there isn't much point. You could apply the same logic to farming or medical facilities.
I am not going to argue about the validity of government and law. Move to the Congo.
>>55347070
Your view on acceptable levels of simplicity and training needed to safely operate a device shows that you understand there are limits. You are just arguing over where those limits should be.
>>55347070
Nevermind the fact that in each of the high profile shootings the killer was a nutcase with a storied history of being a nutcase, and prior to the shooting was no longer under proper observation by their family/caretakers.
Also nearly each and every one of them was on some mind-altering prescription drug, or someone dropped the ball big time when dealing with them, and not alerting the cops.
Oh you know who fits both of these? Lanza. So many ways it could have been prevented were not despite all the huge red flags he was throwing up prior to shooting up a school. I believe Hood, or whatever his name was that shot up the church was also behaving obviously sketchy in the events that lead up to the shooting, and once again everyone just sorta ignored it.
Oh, and Cho. And the Aurora guy. And the guy that shot that senator.
Maybe we Americans are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but we do manage to prevent 99% of these things from ever happening, but with 300,000,000+ people a few are going to slip through the cracks.
>>55339940
that is a classist slur can you not
I mean I cant even
its 2015 and im literally shaking
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk
Just leaving this here.
>>55339830
Do you even have any idea how strong my feels are about this. its like you don't care about the childrens.
>>55347406
I don't know what your point is.
Are you saying some individuals shouldn't have access to certain items capable of lethal violence?
And yes, murder is not the most likely cause of your death. However, certain causes of death bother people more than others and regulations are dictated accordingly.
>>55347340
So in Canada we have the PAL system. What the Possession and Acquisition License requires of you is to take a one day course and pass a theory and practical exam.
From there, you send in your PAL to an RCMP run office building on the East side of the country where it sits for just short of two months.
After you get your PAL in the mail you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a rifle in five minutes. With this system in place people still call for more control and restrictions.
Already such a short ways into the Liberal term I get to see the RCMP has raised concerns over three of the six rifles I own. If by some horribly bullshit reason they decide these perfectly normal rifles are too scary but weren't the day before, I am told to hand them in for $0 compensation.
With a very strictly ran licensing system in place there is only more and more restrictions, please don't kid yourself.
Oh and the potentially too scary rifles are 1, 5, and 6 in this picture.
>>55339830
You won't and shouldn't if you're an actual responsible person. We have to find some way of keeping mental retards from getting a pistol. And you know it's as easy as asking if they're thinking paranoid thoughts and haven't had sex.
>>55347921
I don't understand your point. Are you saying there should be zero weapon restrictions or that you don't like the current restrictions.
My understanding is most people have been complaining about my statements that some regulations should exist.
I am ambivalent to what those exact regulations are. My initial statement was meant to convey I doubt they will confiscate currently owned weapons and will focus more on restrictions on sale and acquiring new guns.
I guess the arbitrary power of killing 30 people in 10 seconds struck a nerve.
>>55347921
Come home, Canada man.
>>55347742
You're just dead set on trying to push people into some kind of argumentative fallacy where they must accept your side, aren't you, Precious?
If you're going to argue in favor of "regulations" on guns, then do some research, mkay? There are already gun control laws in the US that handle that sort of thing.
>literally trying to use the "Can we just get -some- kind of gun control law here?" tactic on /pol/
>2011+4
Shiggy.
>>55348346
The laws in your less restrictive states are either good as they are, or need to be less restrictive. The SBR laws are the stupidest part of them with no purpose.
You already do not sell firearms to felons, what more could you ask for without intruding on the rights of your countrymen?
>>55348393
I need to hold out as long as I can friend.
>>55348646
Apparently we need to ban guns on appearance and magazine capacity according to this retard.
Because it doesn't take all of a few mere seconds to reload a gun. Also; you see that shoulder thing that goes up? That shit is fucking DANGEROUS. Better get rid of that.
>>55349008
The problem is most (if not everyone) who is opposed to firearm ownership has either had one bad experience or has never tried using them. I guarantee without a doubt that any Canadian politician I would ask couldn't tell me the differences between a vz58(something I can and do own) and an AKM(something I'm forbidden from owning). Only that they're both scary and have no place in civilian hands.
God forbid you fully understand things you want to ban.
>>55349241
Are you kidding me? You guys still get all the Russian, and Chinese surplus we're not allowed to have for reasons I can't even fully understand. Because Norinco fucked up once? Because Remington was jelly that nobody wanted to spend $700 USD on a bolt-action rifle in 1990 and opted for spending $50 on an SKS instead?
On one side of the boarder a Russian SKS in good condition is some $200 leafbux, but on the other side it's $800+ if you want a stock that isn't beat to shit and has it's original shellac in decent shape.
>>55349460
There was a man in Calgary, Alberta who got 1400 incendiary rounds of 7.62x39 in an order from Norinco and he went and complained to the store he got it through because he ordered FMJ and was angry he didn't get what he ordered.
The RCMP flipped their shit and went "Hey, do we have to put a ban on Norinco imports? You shouldn't have these scary incendiary rounds."
Clinton really fucked you guys over with that import ban because I don't see any reasonable chance you could have for lifting something so bullshit. It's buried in safety under political bullshit.
>>55348156
>We have to find some way of keeping mental retards from getting a pistol.
We do ? How about we reverse all the libturd related laws, and see how that goes first.
Gun free zones might be a bit less common, especially on military bases, who won't have raging muslims "serving".
Also, lib pols and big important libturds who are for gun control will be legally required to give up all protection with firearm and other offensive objects.
They will be allowed a "passive liberal" to be "vocally diplomatic" as "protection".
That's a good starrt.
>>55347190
I like how you just rolled over and tried to pretend you're not categorically defeated on both topics because you are just excusing yourself from participation instead.
Fighter Jets aren't regulated.
Their armaments are, but you just have to get the tax stamps for them as destructive devices.
And you didn't even touch on the central point: Why is trusting government so practically different from trusting your neighbor?
>>55339940
>being this much of a kek
why is it always beta male faggots that cant handle guns, seriously
>>55349719
Has there ever been a more useless law enforcement agency when it comes to firearms than the RMCP? Excluding BAFTE of course.
And yeah, the Clinton bans will likely remain in place forever for the same reason why they'll never re-open the registry for select-fire guns. There's money in keeping this shit rare. I bet if they could find a way to ban the Mosin-Nagant, they would.
>>55342906
>How can proponents of Equality overwhelmingly be against the most egalitarian method of self-defense ever invented
liberals sense how they are surrounded by deranged psychotic freaks and often hear their fellow travelers wish death upon others - a libturd surrounded by fellow armed libturds frightens them to death.
>>55341344
Poe's Law and all. He can't be serious.
>>55350446
>Libturd friend tells me once while we're in an Academy Sports store that he would love to own a crossbow, but can't because he's afraid that he'd shoot someone with it.
Needless to say that was the last time I hung out with that retard.
>>55339830
liberals are retards
>>55339940
good luck in the race war, stupid fuck. "b-but I voted for Obama". You think they care? kek
Millions of Darwin Awards; and liberals supposedly understand evolution, haha
>Liberal keks demand we only have access to same amount of firepower that was available during signing of Constitution.
>OK
>we are guaranteed the same amount of firepower from a time when there were privateers and armed merchant vessels.
>tfw we are guaranteed enough firepower to sink a ship.
>cue delicious tears
>>55340179
did you get this one from facebook?
