Why are guns allowed to be sold?
>It's my second-ammendment right
Okay, so you have the right to "bare arms"? Could you not contextualise that statement to a less advanced time in the efficiency and range of a weapons' destruction?
Do you support automatic weapons being sold in stores?
>(no)
okay, so you made a distinction between one tier of weapon and another within the same category, doesn't this make you a hypocrite for denying the maximal capacity for your civil rights? Aren't you being relativistic?
>no it's just common sense and unnecessary to not sell automatic weapons
so what makes it void for me to say that lower tier weapons from automatic ones ought to be banned too?
>They are primarily hunting weapons and home defense firearms, how would I protect myself from an invader and is hunting now wrong to you?
I feel that a more efficient police force with the capability to arrive to your location before anything fatal happens would be optimal, but obviously this is not a certain method of defence. I don't think that the police should have guns either btw, I want guns eliminated from public circulation and utility in all forms except in the context of the military. I don't think things would work overnight to a full effect but we have to take risks when changing society. You should be able to hunt on public land for population conservation purposes as it's moral to do so, and so on public land, the overnment should provide you with the appropriate weapons as a deposit to your duty of killing wild animals.
>Okay so all the guns are gone off the shelves, what about the black market on the streets? How will you eliminate cartels from arming civilians which puts them at an unfair advantage over the law-abiding? So you support hunting but just when the government does it? Hypocrite, that thinking is dangerous.
Gun control debate. Who won?
I think that if we are to enact full gun control then it will have to take all pre-cautions and post-cautions to allow for us to live peacefully, because that's what we ultimately want. Whatever the causes for an inflation of the black market pertaining to guns we should put an end to, this includes limiting immigration and having stop-and-search for suspects, and yes, inparticular, minorities, it follows the statistical narrative so they will be scrutinised. This is all for a safer society. I cannot abide by private rifle ownership unless you have a license directly from the federal government, any use without the context of it's assigned function, that provides incorruptability of the power of gun ownership, having government surveilance.
>That's pretty ambiguous, to say you will just "figure it out" but sure, I understand your ambition, I just don't feel that it could work with the current state of the black market, fix this issue first and then I will be more open to gun control. I would prefer to not be survieled by the government for owning a rifle, I would prove myself to be reasonable when I got the license initially, anyway, this just seems excessive.
Well I don't see a republican government cracking down on gun violence, they are gun nuts, even then the democrats need to be harder on this issue as well, no PC stuff, urban violence is horrifying, a person who cares about society would deal with these issues swiftly and aggressively. I understand what you're saying. We would just need to make the test for the license very extensive then to provide further liberty to you later on then.
>Okay, so we meet a roadblack, the black market is too inflated for you to take away civilians' guns and we can make a compromise on government-prescribed guns with extensive tests for licenses.
Do you support automatic weapons being sold in stores?
>(yes)
why?
>muh right to bare arms and muh free market
okay so where do arms end and begin? A free market? You support the selling of nuclear weapons, to potential domestic terrorists also?
>Well, no.
So you're a hypocrite?
>No.
You're an idiot.
dDaw the line at .50 cal. The Line is already there. 50 cal bullets are like $8 each, so nigs wont get any so not worried.
okay, so you made a distinction between one tier of weapon and another within the same category, doesn't this make you a hypocrite for denying the maximal capacity for your civil rights? Aren't you being relativistic?
I don't think so. How many black market nukes have been found in Chicago? Which state has laws on books about possessing Nukes? I would rather worry about the 99.9999% of the reality than some fantasy about everyone having nukes.
But that's what I'm saying, the law is already relativistic, so I don't think that limiting ownership further is invalid since there's already bans on more dangerous weapons.
It's like a stock market threshold. You cant define how much people are willing to give up until you push the limit. This limit in the gun world has been pushed to a point where the people show resistance. Of course the government is going to impose limits until resistance. Sorry you can't find a line in the sand, but the world is more complex than that. The line is with the people's tolerance to actually obey.
Pot is illegal, so is heroin, but people (and the law) have a different tolerance and threshold for each.
>legalize all drugs because muh rights
>make asprin illegal because its a drug
Okay, if there's going to be inevitable compromise then so be it, but it must be pushed by pro-gun controllers to the max, and that has potential to get further than where it's at now.
automatic weapons are legal to own in america. there are 250,000 privately owned machine guns.
wow im totally BTFO
>debating with those whose sole goal is tyranny
No.
checks flag
hello roo fucker
rememeber to sage
only your rectum, but that's evident by your meme flag. anyway, if you want it, come and take it.
>sole goal is tyranny
We just want a safer world
Yep, thats what 60 million Russian and Chinese citizens said before they was slaughtered by their own government. We're not compromising anymore! You're not getting anymore gun control! FUCK OFF! SAGE
They already do and won't ever stop!
They probably use 100x more resources than the NRA to spread the fear that if you go outside, you're gonna get shot. That's ok to test the threshold tho, thats how it all works. One day, the fear might be justified and people will make a change. Or the need on the pro gun side for muh firearms will diminish and they'll get "future weapons" Maybe they'll compromise more when they can take out an intruder with a different device. Guns are still the best tool for the job for the majority of people.
What so all europeans are being slaughtered, you fucking paranoid lunatic?
Okay, so what could change which will stop gun ownership? What could replace it's utility?
It is obvious that idiots who don't know about firearms are trying to talk about firearms.
>hurr hurr scurry automatic weapons
When we talk about the Second Amendment, there is no "Compromising".
There are no "Common sense laws".
The language is cut and dry, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>Not infringed
As in, not encroached upon, not regulated, restricted, limited, curbed, or otherwise inhibited, either by law or the government.
why dont you go buy yourself a gun and mind your own fucking business for a change?
I don't think about that because I don't want that. Fuck it I like guns. They're like collecting mini cars to me. How about YOU come up with the solution that YOU want so badly.
I addressed it ion the post, I want to crack down on immigration and introduce stop and search as secondary protections from black market inflation.
Okay, so you support nuclear weapons being circulated in a free market?
so, you set up a debate, you ask the questions, you answer them, and then your side wins.
i'm not even gonna bother with shitposting on this one.
>could you not contextualize rights so that they're limited to certain time periods or technological epochs
Okay, so everything that is not verbal speech or printed on a physical piece of paper with ink is subject to complete control by the government? Before you say yes, statist, think about who's in the white house right now.
come and take it nigger
No thank you.
I don't justify things with the muh constitution argument like gun nuts do, I was addressing their bias.
Self defense is a natural right. The right to arms emanates from that. With penumbras. You like those, right?
he made a valid point about oppressive governments killing their citizens - all you did was call him a "fucking paranoid lunatic"
You did make the point of Europe, however there can be a time in the future where European citizens are being slaughtered in the future. Any government can start to be oppressive. I think you are making a distinction that European governments are "more civilized" and less likely to be corrupt - but the propensity for corruption is not necessarily defined by civility.
founding fatherS hAd private ships of the line with dozens of cannons that could level buildinGs
yEs, citizens should be able to own nukes
i'll unilaterally disarm when the government does
fuck you
Immigration doesn't have shit to do with the proliferation of firearms.
~Eric 2Fas Holder
Stop and Search??? Really??
I hear N. Korea is nice this time of year, how bout you fuck off.
>however there can be a time in the future where European citizens are being slaughtered in the future.
This is a complete hypothetical leap of faith.
and overthrow our governments when they do illegal shit, with unarmed protests and riots, might i add.
>bare arms
Good thing im not reading the rest of thet, or ever surrendering my firearms
>yEs, citizens should be able to own nukes
I'm glad you support a muslim extremist levelling New York
>Do you support automatic weapons being sold in stores?
>>(no)
I fully support full auto weapons being sold in stores.
Try again.
>that fucking leap off the logical cliff
Yes, I do. What of it?
I also believe the people can own tanks and other armored vehicles, anti-air and anti-tank ordnance, battleships and aircraft carriers, fighter/attack jets/planes/helicopters, in addition to their light and heavy machine guns and assault rifles.
So is private citizens owning nukes.
sage
Then push for MAOA2 tests for all pregnancies and a heavy encouragement of getting an abortion if the variant is present.
en.wikipedia.org
This would not only reduce violent crime but also eliminate racism in the long run,
as a difference in genetically induced behavior-patterns are likely to be one of the main causes for there tensions in the US.
When it comes to firearms legislation, a safer world will not be created by removing civilian firearms,
as your logic is based on ignoring homicides that are committed without one.
See graph attached.
Based in "firearms" used for homicides Switzerland is the least safe places in Europe, while it is actually one of the safest. (in spite of the average home being equipped with an "assault weapon")
Estonia on the other hand would seem to be much safer than most countries, although the homicide rate is similar to the US. (far above the EU average)
Guns are a tool sometimes used to commit a crime, legislation based on firearms availability completely ignores the person using the tool.
If you want an example if strict firearms legislation that actually includes a bit of logic, the Czechs are a good example, unlike what is discussed by the US anti-gun lobby:
Do you support automatic weapons being sold in stores?
>(yes)
why?
>muh right to bare arms and muh free market
okay so where do arms end and begin? A free market? You support the selling of nuclear weapons, to potential domestic terrorists also?
>Well, no.
So you're a hypocrite?
>No.
You're an idiot.
>Okay, so you have the right to "bare arms"?
Stopped reading after this.
>Who won?
The American people won.
>Yes, I do. What of it?
Whats the difference between a civilian having nukes and Donald Trumpf having nukes?
Its just an evil rich white pig with a nuke to you right
No.
...
delusion
>Could you not contextualise that statement to a less advanced time in the efficiency and range of a weapons' destruction?
Founding Fathers ruled that one could own their own naval vessel, can't see them having an issue with automatic weapons
Your argument fails from their
Also, you "winning" an argument does not erase the constitution, the debate has been settled for centuries no matter your petty squabblings
If you're an antigun advocate in America, you're well practiced in rhetorical masturbation
is it? Crime in Sweden has been spreading a lot over the past few years. They aren't technically part of the EU but still. With more crime comes more bullshit, and the need for guns for protection rises.
Maybe you just lived in a nice suburban bubble your whole life and you're pushing for an ideal society. Well, ideal societies don't exist. There are good guys and bad guys.
If you can afford it, you should be able to buy whatever weapon you want. Tanks, jets, even a recreational nuke
Shall not be infringed fag
SHALL NOT. 'Arms' implies 'weapons' in the general sense. 200 years ago I could have owned a cannon. Now I should be able to own a grenade launcher. Actually, I can, just not the rounds.
Also, you can buy automatic weapons in the US as long as they are already registered and you transfer the registration.
>I don't justify things with the muh constitution argument
Safer for tyrants, not for citizens.
So you're conflating the arguments of different people now?
You're fucking braindead.
>There are good guys and bad guys.
defeatist
you support terrorism
>This is a complete hypothetical leap of faith.
when did i say i didn’t support full auto funs.
Shall not be infringed.
Idiot? I'm curious how you identify "domestic terrorists" in order to not sell to them. I'm also curious how you think proliferation of nukes ever could be considering the economics of producing one.
What's amusing here is you're afraid of just certain things that are "illegal" while not knowing that there are far more dangerous things that can be assembled fairly easily. For instance, it's not that big of a deal to put together a dirty bomb or any number of chemical weapons.
It is always the same with you people.
>I support the right to keep and bare arms
SO YOU SUPPORT NUKES WTF
>W-what?
YOU'RE AN IDIOT, REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Wow, great job completely throwing all Muslim people under the bus. There are plenty of religious and political terrorists, and they are not all "Muslim extremists".
The cost of constructing and maintaining a nuclear weapon is extremely prohibitive to those who are NOT government entities. Basically, you can have your nuclear weapon, but good luck actually acquiring the materials needed to construct one.
Why should civilians not have the right to own nuclear weapons?
>public owning nukes is a stupid concept
>yes, i support public ownership of nukes
try again.
>you support terrorism
No
The constitution makes it so if one chooses to be a terrorist, they have a lot of weapons to choose from
Same goes for those who want protection from terrorists
ISIS buy nukes from arms dealers, thers plenty of covert ISIS terrorists in america, i dont fucking want them killing people.
ISIS is islamic
domestic terrorism
>i dont fucking want them killing people
Than buy a gun and hunt em down, faggot
How new are you?
You clearly know shit about weapons, please stop. Fully automatic weapons are the most popular choice for home defense and hunting so no gun supporter will ever say no to the selling of fully automatic weapons.
>Same goes for those who want protection from terrorists
Yes, I want protection from terrorists by making fucking nukes illegal, what's wrong with that?
Cost of living in a free society. I value my freedom more than I value your false sense of security. Get armed, get trained and look out for yourself and those around you. Don't expect the government to do it, because the government is fucking inept.
dude if ISIS had a nuke, Israel (and you) would be vapor.
You're doing it again.
>ISIS buy nukes from arms dealers
What sort of imaginary movie-styled world do you live in?
There aren't "off-the-shelf" nuclear weapons just floating around. This isn't a fucking Nicholas Cage movie, Lord of War. There aren't these magical arms-dealers with everything under the sun. The largest arms dealers are the governments themselves, fighting proxy wars with the people of other countries.
pls. when any sort of criminal over here tries to fuck with us we at least know he wont have a gun.
so our defenses against them, are based on that knowledge and our actions, or those of the governments, are accordingly.
only organised crime uses guns and its pretty rare it gets mixed up with normal peeps
You guys never know, 24/7
i can only imagine what that does to the psyche of both the public and the criminals.
because even you criminal aren't sure when the fuck a grandma decided to kill them.
I would use the government, dumbass
op is obviously a straw manning cuck
this is coming from a canadian
Why don't you just stop being pussy faggot and mind your own business?
>what's wrong with that?
It goes against your constitution, move faggot
>Cost of living in a free society. I value my freedom more than I value your false sense of security.
Clinically insane.
You want nukes to legal
that's not defeatism my friend, that's realism. There are gangsters in US society with guns, and I can tell you without a doubt some of those gangsters try to be good as much as they can, and there are also the bad gangsters. The same is true for cops, there are good cops and bad cops. By good cop I mean one that always follows procedures, that doesn't hurt a suspect more than he has to to catch him. There are bad cops who are racist and don't give a fuck how much of a beating their suspect has been given.
There are good politicians and corrupt politicians. Some people in our society are twisted. Also despite your shitty strawman arguments don't you realize that you are simply a vocal minority? Most of the southern states/bible belt love gun ownership. In the midwest gun ownership is high as well. Why should your ideals be applied to people who don't care for them? Isn't that the kind of authoritarianism you don't want?
Their guns will be taken away when Mueller gets what he needs from Congress! All American patriots interested in taking down the patriarchy should rev up their Twitter account and spread the word about #ReleasetheMemo
If this memo about the FISA court is released to the public it will prove 100% to everyone that Drumpf colluded with Russia and is using the FISA court to spy on undocumented migrants and the Community of Color! This is horrible and must be stopped: demand that your Representatives release this memo to the public immediately!
You want to make all firearms illegal, not just nukes, and when people call you out on it you screech "muh nukes".
Don't think I don't notice your switcharoo nigger.
Yep, and you want their stockpile to be publicised in a free market, I don't want that.
I want military hardware legal, as per the spirit and the letter of the second amendment.
I forgot to add that outside the US the main source for firearms used by criminals are police and military stockpiles.
This is why full auto AKs are cheaper in Europe than they are in the US, as a lot of stuff gets "lost" in the Balkans..
havocscope.com
Completely eliminating civilian firearm ownership (which is close to impossible) in the US would simply create a market
for former government owned guns from south America being smuggled into the US using the current route used for drugs.
So supporting "the wall" would have to be a main component of a push to reduce firearms available to criminals ...
Oh, and I guess I forgot to mention, if there were these super-clandestine arms dealers, ISIS would already have a nuclear weapon at their disposal. Something your bullshit "No-guns laws" wouldn't have prevented.
>hurr hurr let's ban the people from owning firearms!
>durr durr, that'll stop ISIS from owning nukes!
That is your "logic". I use "logic" (in quotes) because it isn't logical. You aren't logical.
Life is not a movie.
>It goes against your constitution
so?
Want a giant redpill?
I'm white, angry, far right and in the military
Most people I associate with, are white, far right and in the military or the local, provincial and federal police departments.
Make guns illegal for anyone but us, I pray you do that.
nuclear weapons have to be registered with the BATFE as incendiary or explosive devices per the National Firearms Act.
faggot
>so?
So any talk about weapons limitation that doesn't begin with uprooting your constitution is just rhetorical masturbation.
Just move to Canada man, it sounds like you'd be happier here.
You will be the first one to fall (or should I say, autunum?) on the day of the rake.
Which, as it currently stands, the NFA, GCA, and FOPA/Hughes Amendment, are all infringing upon the peoples' right to keep and bear arms, AKA the Second Amendment. Literally unconstitutional.
I like this gun: Fully Auto Fully Legal.
Does this make you feel better since it's not a "firearm"??
youtube.com
>Gun control debate. Who won?
The right, mostly. The Left has more extensive gu control in the states it controls, of course, but national gun control laws remain fairly loose, especially compared to other English speaking countries.
> This limit in the gun world has been pushed to a point where the people show resistance. That limit was basically reached in 1994, mainly because of a strategic misstep by gun control advocates. The gun control forces spent the 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's laying the groundwork for more extensive national gun control. At a cultural level, the Left began stigmatizing violence in television making it basically illegal to show violence on TV. When violence was shown, it was made into a sort of fantasy violence, like the A Team, where no one got hurt. Firearms education classes were excised from the public school system and gun ownership was stigmatized in media and pop culture, And just past the peak gang violence of the early 1990's gun control advocates called for the first outright ban of an entire class of firearms which became the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. The ban was ostensibly to curb inner city gang violence, but in reality the AWB had two real goals. The first was to get the public used to the government outright banning weapons by a certain type. The second was to call for more extensive bans when the first inevitably failed to produce any results. The problem in the regard for the gun control crowd was the nature of the bill itself. As Senator Diane Finestien Famously said "If I had the votes I would have said Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in, every bullet, every gun. I could not do that, I didn;t have the votes. Instead a compromise bill was reached. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in with new weaponsbeing subject to the law. The second compromise was a ten year sunset ban. If the law was not renewed, it would expire in 2004.
cont.
So you're a cultural relativist?
Child marriages are okay in that country because that's just what they do over there?
They're allowed guns because that's just what they do, man?
>You will be the first one to fall (or should I say, autunum?) on the day of the rake.
No
I'm the guy with the rake