So which one does America ban, pol?

so which one does America ban, pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
cdnnsports.com/magazines/mini-14-223-30rd-factory.html#.WodZaWaZNE4
law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
youtube.com/watch?v=4zvOhYWWVOI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I know what these guns are only thanks to video games.

hopefully we do ban .22 AR clones

You don't even need to ban any.

Just impose background checks. Any history of psychological problems = no gun 4 u.

Oh wait. It's the US.

idk, that black one looks scarier, maybe we ban that one?

both

that is literally already law.

neither

whats wrong user, dont you like FTF and FTE drills?

But 9 out of 10 school shooters had a history of psychological problems, and they all legally bought a gun. How was that possible?

ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

everyone I've asked has said B. So a NATO that can shoot 5.56s and 223s is less dangerous than a gun that's literally only going to kill squirrels at close range because it's not black and scary with a pistol grip

Hey, those are pretty damn fun, and quiet.

>Which do we ban?
Niggers like you.

If I get this correctly, if you have suspicions that the person is not mentally sane, you're not allowed to sell them a gun?

You don't need a background check, certificate of good health, anything? You just need to walk in there, not be a full sperg and then walk out?

>the black one looks scarier
The wooden one can be used to shatter your skull if someone buttstrokes you with it.

I'm using a proxy, mutt

Bad people have always existed and will always exist.
New bad people are being born this very moment.
You can't stop them with feelings.
You can't stop them with laws.
Not even your wife's boyfriend.
We already have background checks.
And I'm not giving up my civil liberties because of some Euro-fag's feelings.

Both shoot the same cartridge, both have easy to get 30 round mags.

SHALL

U.S. should ban faggots. Let's start with OP

Assuming you're a normal law-abiding citizen I see no reason for you to give up your guns. You have the freedom to own one, and if you want to use that freedom, use it.

we minority report now

false

oh look the redditors started using "faggot"

quizzed my lib coworkers on this shit all day, turns out they want to ban almost everything except for handguns, which account for almost ALL of gun crimes...

cdnnsports.com/magazines/mini-14-223-30rd-factory.html#.WodZaWaZNE4

dude fuck off

do non-law abiding citizens not have a right to self-defense? We already have laws against murder.

all semi auto guns should be banned.

>Just impose background checks.
SHALL

That law isn't enforced and there's a surplus of gunstores making it difficult to enforce.
When you can crack 800 skulls in a matter of minutes from 300 meters away we can ban that one, too.

Do old people have the right to drive a car?

No

a can hold 5.56 or 223
b is a .22, a fucking gun for shooting rats

nobody has the right to drive a car

define semi auto

Where is it listed that your civil liberties entitle you to a fully automatic assault rifle?

They're the same thing, mini 14 are for broke back mountain faggots though

Trick question, neither

I have a great idea, whatever the main weapon of a shooting is, that gun gets banned forever.

sure we'll have some more shootings, but they will dwindle as people find less and less options until the shooters have used every weapon possible and every possible weapon has thus been banned

pretty brilliant imo

>train driver spotted

none

Nowhere, I doubt anyone on this board owns a fully automatic weapon legally

The answer is none.

neither

The only ban I'd uphold on weaponry is a ban on shitty guns.

>do non-law abiding citizens not have a right to self-defense?
no
becoming a criminal means giving up rights
same reason felons can't vote

C. Degenerates.

Ban these people and the gun problem goes away.

...

2nd and 10th amendment
driving is a privilege not a right

Felons actually can vote now and criminals keep their rights intact, just constrained. Jesus fuck does nobody even know basic constitutional law and judicial process?

>Cars have less rights than guns
The absolute state of america
All firearms with a closed bolt firing mechanism

>Felons actually can vote now
thye dont have the right to
> even know basic constitutional law
read the 14th amendment dipshit

Here
law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

So once you serve your time and pay your debt to society, shouldn't your rights be restored? It's this line of logic that has created a criminal underclass. Once you get in trouble once, you're fucked for life. Many will choose to re-offend because civilian life has nothing to offer at that point. How is this rehabilitation?

Please show me in the 2nd and 10th amendment where it states fully automatic assault weapons.

>>Cars have less rights than guns
cars and guns have no rights

>right to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed

Without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, you fucking imbecile. Individuals convicted of a felony are ineligible to vote WHILE incarcerated, on parole, or on probation. You are a retard.

>Please show me in the 1st amendment where it states electronic means of memes.

Either way, we all agree owning a car is a good thing, but if you give a car to an old person, even with the best intentions, things can go wrong.

Isn't that the same with a mentally instable person owning a firearm?

>keep and bear Arms
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution

Yes. In the USA, you can't impede someone's rights without due process. Until someone causes harm to someone else, you cannot impede on those rights.

its kind of a silly trick question it doesn't really prove a point if you fool them into doing something like that

this one

I don't see "fully automatic assault rifles" anywhere in that. I think you're mistaken. Sure the government can't take away your muskets and flintlocks - what would have been considered "arms" back in 1791, but it doesn't appear that assault rifles fall under that.

So you can only take preventative measures when the damage is done? That's not a problem to you?

Gatling guns were considered arms during the time period, thus included. Read the Federalist Papers.

how is it a trick question?

Arms means any weapon, including (but not limited to) fully automatic weapons, tanks, heavy caliber machine guns, battleships, warplanes, a sharpened piece of wood...

So I can purchase and build nuclear arms?

> DUE PROCESS OF LAW
That doesnt say while incarcerated part of your punishment is being striped of rights
>Isn't that the same with a mentally instable person owning a firearm?
until they have been convicted of a crime they have every right to

why isnt the age to buy semi auto rifles put to 21 like with handguns? makes little sense to be able to buy ARs before handguns.

No. That's the price of freedom. I have a right to defend myself. I have a right to not drive a car if I think the risk is too high. I can stay home if I want. I can carry a gun or not carry a gun. I can speak freely and may or may not offend people. I can drink starbucks or dunks. It's good to be free.

It doesn't, and no one is stopping censorship on Sup Forums either.

then free speech and freedom of press don't count for the internet. therefore Trump can legally kill people who talk about him online as traitors

Sure if you got the money to refine uranium, build a rocket capable of carrying a warhead, building a launch site, and being able to pay for all necessary personnel. I don't think the UN would like that very much though.

>your muskets and flintlocks
I don't see "muskets and flintlocks"
>it doesn't appear that assault rifles fall under that.
How are any firearms not armaments?
>So I can purchase and build nuclear arms?
you dont like it amend the constitution

well you show someone a 2 guns and fool them into saying the one thats "less dangerous" because it looks less "scary" it doesn't really prove anything, people who are anti gun probably dont know much about guns and that doesnt really make them wrong about gun control.

I am personally pro gun in the sense that i shouldn't be told what i can and cant do by other people.

false equivalency. faggot

>therefore Trump can legally kill people who talk about him online as traitors
since the constitution was only talking about the people that exist when it was written I guess that makes sense

americans are talking sven

still fuckin amazes me how a regular burguer can have a military-grade gun clone on its home "to protect itself", who needs an automatic firearm to enforce their "second amendment rights"?

People have been arrested for trying though. How come there's no rallying to protect their right to attempt genocide?

C = False Dichotomy

We have that law, and it's enforced under due process. Do you want to eliminate due process? Where does the history of psychological problems come from? Is it hospital visits? Police "contacts," friends, neighbors, anyone who's willing to sign a form suggesting that a person they know has a history of mental illness? Where's the due process. How does this stop literally ANYONE you want to from owning firearms. Our law, as it stands means you must be INVOLUNTARILY committed to a mental hold. That's where it should stay. Someone getting help from a marital counselor shouldn't be banned from owning firearms. All a law like this would do, is make people more afraid to, and less likely to seek help. If you're voluntarily seeking help, there's no reason why you should have your rights taken away.

oh you're right. let me laugh even harder

>How come there's no rallying to protect their right to attempt genocide?
I got better things to do

objectively isn't, soynigger

you are not even legally allowed to raise your own kids faggot

youtube.com/watch?v=4zvOhYWWVOI

The government labels them as "terrorists" for trying to use their constitutional right to nuclear weaponry. Also they might have actually been terrorists, who aren't guaranteed constitutional rights to nuclear weapons.

>military grade
>gun in OP is literally a squirrel hunting gun

wrong

who needs an automatic firearm to enforce their "second amendment rights"?
shotguns or handguns are probably not good enough.to protect yourself from tyranny.

Uh oh! Someone’s not following the rules!!!!

>needs
Bill of rights. Its my right to own them.

America won't ban them. Instead, America will buy both, another set for the wife, kids, dog, cat, and the squeaky toy.

After that, America will spend their tax return buying more ammo for moar dakka, and they'll buy accessories to make their dakka look cool.

This

>The use of scrapers, bots, or other automated posting or downloading scripts is prohibited. Users may also not post from proxies, VPNs, or Tor exit nodes.
>>>/global/rules/14

Wrong, it’s a mini 14

>a military-grade gun clone on its home "to protect itself",
that is where the militia part comes in
the people need military weaponry to be called up for militia duty
there is a better(still bad) argument for banning handguns than an m-16