What are your views on gun control?

Hello Sup Forums,

I've always loved firearms from the time I was a child and wanted to own them. I've also been strongly pro-2nd Amendment (for example, when the AWB sunset was being debated in the early 2000s I was telling my parents how ridiculous it was). I currently own 15 guns and shoot often.

However, as I've grown older and rejected libertarianism I increasingly have come to support restrictions on guns. The fact is that lax regulations only work long-term if the society is virtuous and stable. We've seen that our society is not. It's only a matter of time before leftists start shooting Trump supporters, starting mass riots, and causing chaos on a mass scale thanks to being armed.

If we are to instill a new order that rejects global liberalism, an armed populace objecting to us will pose an existential threat.

Other urls found in this thread:

i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/136/536/cbe.gif
youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU
petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-nfa
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

I don't think the government should have any say in who has access to tools that fire projectiles at relatively high speeds considering they're pretty easy to build in the first place but who am I to question the wisdom of those who rule over us lowly plebs from their ivory towers, usually guarded by people who carry the things that fire projectiles at relatively high speeds

It's insane, in some countries you can get a 5 year prison sentence for merely possessing an "illegal" firearm.

100% SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

My views?

Any law introduced does not matter to me, as the 2nd amendment makes it perfectly clear I can't be touched.

On one hand, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to rebel against a possible tyrannical government that fails to represent them. On the other hand, the chances of that happening (at least in the US) are unlikely and guns DO make killing easier. Gun manufacturing is also a huge industry in the US and creates many jobs.

It's a tricky topic at best. I believe in allowing guns but with regulations, but I can sympathize with other viewpoints as well.

Gun control is a feels blankie for literal retards who have no business voting.

A person's views on gun control are like a litmus test for retardation.

dude you think the dems give a damn about the second? if they got a majority in the scotus they would pass everything they ever wanted

*On the other hand*

whoops my b /pol

>What are your views on gun control?

The exact ones portrayed in the constitution.

My views are:

>Son X spend all this time at pc and dont like study
>Son Y has good grades and study alot, but sometimes he play games at pc.
>mom A say "X you wont be allowed to use the pc, because you spend all your time there and dont study"
>mom A also say "Y, you wont also be able to use the pc or you may end like your brother."

See what I mean?

>Gun control is a feels blankie for literal retards who have no business voting.
> A person's views on gun control are like a litmus test for retardation.
couldn't have said it any better.

the only gun restrictions I support is the de-facto ban on new full autos. there's too many retards in this country for that to end well.

>it's okay to regulate or ban something when it's convenient for me

You sound like a fucking leftard. Fuck off.

it depends on which country is involved

gun control works very well in some places, but it would be a total disaster in the united states

there are way too many guns in circulation now and we have always been deeply rooted in gun culture

>Any law introduced does not matter to me, as the 2nd amendment makes it perfectly clear I can't be touched.

LOL
Like NSA is not spying you because constitution doesn't allow right?

>irony

...

If you don't understand why the 2nd amendment was created in the first place then you need to get the fuck out of my country.

>On the other hand, the chances of that happening (at least in the US) are unlikely

The moment Americans feel so oppressed that neither food nor finances are guaranteed is when it happens.

Weaponry always will be the great equalizer in war. Fortunately, our society was made fool-proof because the military is sworn to protect the people even from a tyrannical gov't.

That is to say, if the people found themselves incapable of revolt then it would be the duty of the military to step in for the people.

Nice try faggott
I don't give a fuck if the "other side" is armed.
I'm not giving that up.

This really
Go fuck yourself pansy faggot.
We can hold our own with freedom.
Let our authorities do their job and guns won't be a problem.

they'll probably just coup

PS: This comes from a guy that would be afraid of even touching a firearm, and years ago, voted to ban guns at a referendum.

If that analogy (actually another similar thing) changed my mind about guns it can change your.

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

>leftists start shooting trump supporters
Leftists hate guns, you idiot.
Globalism requires that every be disarmed and unable to riot against them. Taking away our guns will only help them.
>1 post by this ID
I don't know why I bother with these threads anymore

Who's ready for deregulated suppressors?
Who here already /silent/?

congrats
i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/136/536/cbe.gif

I can't wait. My ruger 22 is gonna get one as soon as that law passes

>Dat shit plastic tier high point
School shooter detected

hi point carbines actually aren't that bad. the only thing that sucks is they're only 10 rounds

>leftist are going to shoot people
>taking away everyones right to protect themselves

I think gun control should be taught in any school that receives federal funding.

Federal funding can also pay for the ranges, ammo, guns, and everything else needed to teach gun control.

You really think that a bunch of feministas and metrosexual are going to learn how to shoot a gun? These people are cowards.

>a piece of paper gives you an unlimited right
If the Dems amended the constitution to make healthcare a right would you believe it to be true?

>On one hand, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to rebel against a possible tyrannical government that fails to represent them
It's a tricky topic indeed. But people were lied to and manipulated for decades, and Congress enacted legislation that no one in their right minds would have voted for had they known the truth. See 1965 Immigration Act.

>muh feels
I don't really care about some niggers killing each other with unregistered guns, but when gun culture is as bad and antisocial as it is then we have a problem. Guns used to be tools, sporting equipment, instruments used for the furtherance of the common good. Now they are worshipped and hoarded for purely selfish purposes. The genie is out of the bottle now and leftists are perfectly OK with killing cops; it's only a matter of time before order breaks down completely.

>Leftists hate guns, you idiot
Modern leftists hate everything that is associated with "white cishet male patriarchal culture," which guns fall under. When they feel empowered and pressured enough, they will see that guns are useful in bringing about the downfall of Western society as they were in the Soviet Union.

This is a very weak attempt at a personal appeal.

>gotta disarm those antifas, right?

I think this is a good idea, have a smallbore rifle/pistol range funded for every high school.

pretty sure that's a beretta cx4 senpai

A lot of them still do have ranges in the basement from way back when.

But if grandpa can set up target in the basement and equip it with a bb gun for the kids, then it shouldn't be very costly at all to get a start.

IT'S A BERETTA CX4 REEEEEE

The swiss show how it should be done.
Serve, and keep your gun afterwards

Gonna do one for my cx4. Gotta thread the barrel first tho. Mines chambered in .45 so a supressor should work perfectly

Not one more fucking bite.

Gotta say that it feels pretty good not to be living in a third world shithole where you're in constant danger of getting shrekt if you're not carrying a gun.

I really want one of these
Oh hold on
I'm English

Kind of like America outside of the gun free ghettos controlled by democrats, you mean?

If you can come up with a form of gun control which
> A) Does not infringe upon lawful citizens 2A rights, and
> B) unequivocally will ONLY affect criminals

I am all for it. In the last ~240 years, not a single law has been passed which has actually met those two extremely basic requirements.

> Guns make killing easier
Excluding suicide, there were ~11,000 gun related deaths last year. Vehicle deaths were ~~35,000.

Why is it that a device which 'makes killing easier' (debatable), has less deaths associated with it than transportation, which is arguably not designed to kill at all, despite vehicle piloting requiring testing and licensure, and still having thousands of deaths each year?

> Regulations
What regulations would prevent crime and not infringe upon law abiding citizens? Things like Magazine size and feature restrictions have already been proven, time and time again, to have no effect, yet are pushed by some groups as a feel good panacea. These things only affect law abiding citizens, criminals (as such) ignore laws.

>Tyranny
This is the big one. People laugh about it, but the general idea is that if the government gets bad enough, the populace can install a new one. How many liberals now think they're living under the reign of King Trump I, and suddenly like the 2A?

>>a piece of paper gives you an unlimited right
>If the Dems amended the constitution to make healthcare a right would you believe it to be true?
The constitution guarantees rights, it does not grant them.

Switzerland is a much more homogeneous culture than the USA. Ever notice how you don't hear many problems about 'gun control' before the civil rights era?

What did he mean by this?

Sorry. No. Human nature is such that we never let any one human or small group of humans have total power. To do so is to ensure that one or more groups will be destroyed in the process. Compare this thing you want to the process of natural selection and evolution. Stronger animals kill and replace weaker animals. This is the law of nature. Also consider the arrangement of how herbivores and carnivores exist. If the predator kills too many sheep it starves. If the predators die out then the sheep grow too numerous and eat all the grass and then they starve. It's a vicious cycle but it's the truth. The same applies to humans and their civilizations. Balance must be achieved in order to thrive.

Almost all of the vehicle deaths were accidental. Almost all of the gun related deaths were not.

The vehicle has a purpose other than killing. Where as the only purpose of a gun is to kill.

>The constitution guarantees rights, it does not grant them
The guy you're defending was worshipping the Second like it was some almighty Word from Heaven. I'm making the same argument you do there.

We have the right to free association, contract, and property...but only after 18 years of servitude. Do you campaign vigorously for the rights of minors, or do you start taking a relative viewpoint there?

>Switzerland
Switzerland is great.

1. Suggest that Switzerland is really and honestly a nice advanced rich country with democracy and everything.

2. Mention they all have guns.

3. ???? [spoilers it's lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth]

4. Enjoy the total lack of ability to explain what doesn't fit the model

Kind of goes to show that if burgers don't carry guns, they chimp out like no other. Exactly as I was saying earlier.

And?

Was there supposed to be an argument in there somewhere?

Do you want a trophy for that assessment bong? Why should a tool's purpose warrant it being banned?

If somebody already is at a point he would be willing to commit the worst crime of all he dont follow the gun laws or anything anymore.

It is granted from heaven. The Constitution does nothing more than recognize this fact.

Learn negative law, faggot. We even wrote it down as being "natural law" so as not to offend the heathens.

Oh and to answer your question directly.

The vast majority of Americans use a car for several hours every day.

The vast majority of Americans very rarely handle guns, even if they own them and when they do they're probably a lot more careful with them than they are with their cars (sadly). Yet despite this, they still make up almost a third as many deaths. Madness.

What?

Are you mentally ill?

>The vast majority of Americans very rarely handle guns

>Things like Magazine size and feature restrictions have already been proven, time and time again, to have no effect
Assault weapon features are bullshit, but the capability of detachable magazine absolutely has an impact in the casualty rate of mass shootings. Stripper clips are extremely difficult to use under stress.

The "Hur dur automobile" argument is ridiculous and not even remotely internally consistent for the reasons stated above. It's a false equivalency.

Shoot each other all you want I couldn't give a fuck.

But when you try to insist on doing so please make arguments that make sense.

Did God tell you this Himself?

Sounds like a good idea for promulgating magazines.

I mean unless you think everybody is going to shoot you but you're going to survive because they only have stripper clips.

In that case why are you 47x more likely to be shot in the US as you are in the UK? (After accounting for population).

We've given plenty of arguments that make sense in this thread. You've posted nothing but drivel.

...

Yes believe it or not even most people who own guns will just have them in the house. How often they're actually handled is probably once a month or less.

Except it is an argument that makes sense. A vehicle's purpose is to get to point A from point B, yet there thousands of fatal accidents every year. People die from getting hit by a vehicle, just the same as getting shot. Vehicles have the capacity to kill humans so why not ban them??? Purpose is irrelevant.

Because black and hispanic gangbangers in gun free ghettos run by democrats like to kill each other for sport.

Outside of those particular shit holes, America is far safer than jolly olde england.

No, it's a recognition of the natural state of things. It was extensively debated even before the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution. And we wouldn't even have had the Constitution in the first place except that we needed a strong federal government in order to fight off the invading army.

Do they not teach any of this in elementary school? If not, you could consider, "The 5000 Year Leap" by Cleon Skousen as a quick introduction. It's shorter than reading the federalist papers.

Good sight picture is the best gun control.

You really are adorable.

If you're not part of a drug gang or writing a book about the CIA or the Clintons or the bankers or something, then you probably won't get shot.

The us dosen't has a united gun law.
In fact the states have among the strictes weapon laws of entire world (NY,NJ,HI,CA)
If you want to take a look at a country with real liberal gun laws look at switzerland.

Oh yeah, I voted for someone pro second amendment because I wanted it restricted. Go away Hillary.

Let me spell it out for you as simply as I can:
1)Gun free zones in the US have more crime
2)Non-gun free zones in the US have less crime
therefore 3)The only thing preventing Americans from chimping out is that they constantly passively threaten each other with lethal weapons

Did your mother drop you on your head as an infant?

This. You could apply this logic to world affairs, nuclear deterrence helps maintain the peace.

Oh, another group that doesn't get shot is gunless girls from foreign countries who don't get scared of niggers with guns.

I know this because I read the police reports. It's pretty much always a nigger in a hoodie with a gun demanding an iphone or something and never shooting.

Purpose is absolutely relevant. Cars are necessary for modern daily life. Guns are not.

Said fatal accidents are accidental. Most gun deaths are intentional.

We have only had one mass shooting since we outlawed handguns.

And the gun used in that shooting? A legally owned shotgun.

No, I'm saying the average mass shooter with an SKS instead of an AR might manage 10-15 kills instead of 20 or 30. In a place like the Pulse Nightclub he would've had a higher chance of failure due to being tackled.

>this level of disinfo
Small arms alone don't pose an existential threat to the government, especially not in the hands of unmotivated, unemployed leftists.

We'll always have a superior understanding of small unit tactics, improvised weapon construction, and the knowledge of history needed to not repeat fatal military mistakes.

>average mass shooter
lol

Is that supposed to be a counterargument? If you have some more, let's hear it.

But seriously we can't let the NRA have the nuclear codes

The rights of minors as citizens is a grey area in many ways. I'm nowhere near qualified to even begin touching that.

So an item 'designed only to kill' is less lethal statistically than an item designed not to kill. Would you agree that this implicitly implies that the overall legality of guns is grossly overstated?

> muh false equivalency
How? Death is death, is it not? A device supposedly designed to kill people, kills less people than something which is not.

I actually don't think Switzerland is a good example for US gun law. It works for them. This being America, many things that the EU would cherish would (and should) be ignored here.

For you, anonkun: youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

A trained user can reload a magazine in 2-4 seconds. If only x round magazines are available, they will simply carry more of them. There is little to no effect on lethality by limiting magazine size.

Do you find it as entertaining as I do that 99% of the people who support gun control in the US are from irrelevant foreign countries?

Honestly, I'm begging to think this is some weird sexual kink you guys have.

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-nfa

Sign this!!!

If our society cannot survive its constituents, our society does not deserve to exist.

> that the overall legality of gun
should be 'lethality', damn autocorrect.

What's wrong with the term? You have incidents with 100 injuries and you have incidents with 50, you have trained ex-military and you have autists who practice at the range. I'm bullshitting the guesstimate here but you can't disagree that if you wanted the high score, you wouldn't use an SKS or SVT-40 when you had an AR available.

>tfw Switzerland isn't part of the EU

...

Why is Deutschland having to explain this shit? And when did her majesty's cucks have the right to pipe in about US gun laws?

I own 20 plus guns no handguns
Live in shit ass state were I feel it's unconstitutional to get my "pistol permit"

Really hope trump makes a national carry act

the problem isn't guns, it's gun violence
removing guns would stop the gun violence, but not violence
the issue to address is violence
what causes violence?
niggers
but also, absence of belonging and a decaying social structure which results in animosity and employment that is not fulfilling
we need to repair social cohesion
this takes money and a true american nationalist to lead the way

No. Because in terms of usage people will drive their car for an hour or more every day.

Where are people will very rarely handle their guns. If you were divide man hours of driving a vehicle against man hours of handling a gun you'll find that guns come out on top as far, far more lethal.

I don't support gun control in the US, I just find it hilarious how American gun fetishists keep shooting themselves in the foot, literally and figuratively.

Why not put ball bearings in a pressure cooker and then get shot at by god knows how many rounds while you're hiding in a boat writing your last confession until they have to drag you out without a single wound and cut your throat out so you can't say anything in court?

And all this after they were working for the Brzezinski Foundation for Chechen Terrorism that Russia warned us twice about? Bitch please.