Bans guns

>bans guns

Other urls found in this thread:

beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&disbursement_purpose_categories=other&committee_id=C00578997&min_date=01-01-2015&max_date=10-05-2016
docquery.fec.gov/pdf/318/201607159020655318/201607159020655318.pdf#navpanes=0
thejidf.org
thejidf.org/2008/10/about-jidf.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force
youtube.com/watch?v=7dGJDJoeAok
youtube.com/watch?v=yKrXr0v8uBM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

We really messed up. Anyone else regret voting for him?

Rand should have won

Yeah, because Hillary would never have banned guns and there totally was another alternative candidate with an actual chance to win. I mean, Jeb would totally have squashed Hillary, right?

Fuck trump.

...

...

Banning guns is proof that America is following Europe's lead to try and collapse as fast as possible. Fuck western civilisation it doesn't care about morality or justice anymore.

Wait in all seriousness, did he ban them? I don't read the news or whatever

>bans plastic add-on
>liberals still butthurt
>nothing changes
>shills gonna shill
>kikes gonna kike

Name one gun that was banned. I'll wait. But hey, you CTR guise got to pull your dank memes out for the first time in ages, good for you!

Protip: Kill yourself

Noting wrong with better background checks or banning bump stocks. Gave up nothing.

He did perpetuate the idea that something needs to be done in the wrong direction of gun control every time there is a school shooting.

They are not statistically relevant and laws should not be made because of them.

let's not overthink this...

...

>Noting wrong with better background checks or banning bump stocks
Except they're infringements on our firearm rights.

> Gave up nothing.
Except the right to buy firearms and bump stocks.

>He did perpetuate the idea that something needs to be done in the wrong direction of gun control every time there is a school shooting.
Yes, he bought into the "we must reduce rights every time there's a shooting."

>They are not statistically relevant and laws should not be made because of them.
And yet Trump did advocate it.

He ordered the DoJ to review if bumpstocks are legal.

>Wait in all seriousness, did he ban them? I don't read the news or whatever
He told the Republicans to pass a law banning them.

YES ABOLISH BACKGROUND CHECKS, SO ILLEGALS CAN GET GUNS TOO!

>
Nah he just banned bump stocks

brainlets fell for it. Bump stock ain't shit

All momentum needs to change. We must convince people when these tragedies occur how stupid they are being. We need to suggest "common sense" alternatives that actually might do some good.

Why would that be a ban on guns?

>YES ABOLISH BACKGROUND CHECKS, SO ILLEGALS CAN GET GUNS TOO!
Any business that knowingly hires or houses illegal immigrants should have their business license revoked. All sanctuaries lose their federal funding retroactive from the point of becoming a sanctuary.

Therefore there won't be any illegal immigrants. Regardless, american citizens would have the ability to defend themselves.

Fuck off faggot. Today it's bump stocks, tomorrow it's 30 rd mags.

>We need to suggest "common sense" alternatives that actually might do some good.
Like removing gun control laws making it possible for adults to defend themselves wherever they are.

Something Trump doesn't support apparently.

Cause people like OP here don't know the butt of the gun from the gun itself apparently.
It's not a ban on guns and Obama already did a review on them and they were found legal.

>I have no problem with banning bump stocks because I hate bump stocks.
>I have no problem with banning assault rifles because I hate assault rifles.

whatever you say mister president

Nobody fucking cares about bump stocks.

I think most Sup Forumsacks here agree that there is more value in /ourguy/ politically outmaneuvering what could be a potentially endless & damaging mass gun debate by banning bump stocks. None of us here give a shit about them, nor do half the people that own one as is.

What do we care about? We care about KEEPING OUR GUNS ALTOGETHER, which will never go away because we know what a ban on our guns ACTUALLY looks like

It Doesn't look like this bro, he's just playing the media & his opposition

>Why would that be a ban on guns?
It's more gun control. From a supposed Republican Conservative.

your own infographic says there are 2000 gang homicides out of 15500 total homicides per year.

>Something Trump doesn't support apparently

Of course he doesn't. He's had personal bodyguards his entire adult life.

hillary would have banned guns and fun

They have bump stocks? Source?

FBI is now a joke of and agency and should be disbanded.

Former Trump support here. It was all fun and games but we cannot let this guy take our guns away.

Faggots going to Faggot. That's (you).

grab my pussy gun, dolan

>Nobody fucking cares about bump stocks.
"I hate bump stocks! therefore it's fine to ban them! fuck the right to own bump stocks!"

>I think most Sup Forumsacks here agree that there is more value in /ourguy/ politically outmaneuvering what could be a potentially endless & damaging mass gun debate by banning bump stocks.
So you're willing to give up rights when you already have the superior/correct argument?

>None of us here give a shit about them, nor do half the people that own one as is.
I can't wait to see you faggot say the same thing about the next thing Trump wants to ban. Like standard capacity magazines. Or the shoulder thing that goes up.

>What do we care about?
Apparently not losing your rights one firearm accessory at a time.

>We care about KEEPING OUR GUNS ALTOGETHER,
Except when a Republican President decides to virtue signal by banning those as well.

>Faggots going to Faggot. That's (you).
Just don't fucking understand the slippery slope and that you don't give an inch to the gungrabbers.

>Why would that be a ban on guns?

It's not.
It's Trump acting like he's giving the Left SOMETHING while actually giving them nothing.

your picture looks like a penis

>Except the right to buy firearms
Are you high, nigger? What gun was made illegal to buy today? None.

>Yes, he bought into the "we must reduce rights every time there's a shooting."
Hmmmm....seems we've had a few shootings where there was no new legislation. How do you reconcile this in your head?

Just wondering, since you're saying that something that didn't actually happen somehow did in more than one instance.

>It's Trump acting like he's giving the Left SOMETHING while actually giving them nothing.
Except bump stocks. Which are a right.

I really HOPE you americans to start a civil war.

I don't vote because I live in a liberal shit state, but I don't regret supporting him. You really think Hillary would not have been ten times worse?

Agreed

OMG IT GONNA BE BANNING BULLETS NEXT

You said the same thing when full auto was outlawed decades ago (if you were alive then), and just now, we see the shitty equivalent banned. Why aren't you still complaining about the full-auto ban? Where were all these bans you claim would have happened in between? Oh, that's right, none of it happened other than that we lost the right to buy a device that allows us to wildly spray $100 worth of ammo in 30 seconds, which you'd be too cheap to do anyway.

Just be real about what's happening and not lie about it, you'll feel better. BTW, if Hillary, Bernie or some other conservacuck had won in 2016, you'd already be working with 10 round max mag capacity on all weapons legally owned. Ponder that before you get all faggy MUH BAD TRUMP like a goddamned reactionary retard.

>Are you high, nigger? What gun was made illegal to buy today? None.
It seems I mispoke. I should've said "except our right to buy firearms with bumpstocks." Apologies. I didn't catch that when I originally posted.

>Hmmmm....seems we've had a few shootings where there was no new legislation.
This is the first major school shooting of Trump's presidency and he immediately caved.

>I really HOPE you americans to start a civil war.
These cuckservatives won't. They'll turn in their guns first. They don't want to miss football after all.

Uhh no, try and read it again... I put the important stuff in a box for your types. You are reading 2000 for the NYGS (New York)

I agree that OP and people who started this thread are Jewish shills. But, you need to understand that the founders intended for the public to have automatic weapons, canons, the whole shebang. We are being slowly boiled every time they pass a new gun bill.

>Why aren't you still complaining about the full-auto ban?

Who says I'm not you cum guzzler? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is somehow confusing to you?

>I agree that OP and people who started this thread are Jewish shills.
Which would be odd considering the fact that the Jews are behind gun control...

> But, you need to understand that the founders intended for the public to have automatic weapons, canons, the whole shebang.
Absolutely correct. Any and every law limiting firearms is unconstitutional.

>We are being slowly boiled every time they pass a new gun bill.
Again, absolutely correct.

Never give them an inch.

>Who says I'm not you cum guzzler? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is somehow confusing to you?
Apparently "Shall not be infringed" doesn't matter when those that claim to support firearm rights don't care about the firearm/firearm related accessory is being banned.

There were better choices for republican representatives. That's for sure.

no refunds

My apologies... that is the sampling data you read from the National Youth Gang Survey. I fast read it as New York sampling. Whatever you are still wrong faggot.

Uh, if Vegas wasn't reason to go full-grab, then you have to really ponder why you feel it necessary to be so reactionary now.

I'm giving benefit of the doubt on this one situation because it has no impact on my right to buy any arms I choose, and doesn't affect any that I currently own. Now, if there WAS a Trump push to ban a specific weapon type to appease, if he pushed for magazine size reduction, etc. I'd be marching on Washington myself, but I just don't see this being the need to start talking about the slippery slope - yet.

If the day comes, I'm ready to pull support, but bump stocks are not grounds for me to feel threatened any more than to not be allowed to buy a fully auto weapon to fire off in my backyard. And, something tells me the ACTUAL number of people whose fun with their guns will be affected by this will be exceptionally small, as the average joe can't afford the costs of rapid fire shooting more than once in a very great while.

>b-b-but h-h-h-hillary!!!
>whatboutism

/ptg/ please go

kek

>Any
Why the fuuck is marian rivera here in a gun thread

>Uh, if Vegas wasn't reason to go full-grab, then you have to really ponder why you feel it necessary to be so reactionary now.
'BECUZ DIZ IS CHITLUNS!"

>I'm giving benefit of the doubt on this one situation because it has no impact on my right to buy any arms I choose, and doesn't affect any that I currently own.
So because it doesn't infringe upon your rights personally, the infringement is acceptable?

>Now, if there WAS a Trump push to ban a specific weapon type to appease, if he pushed for magazine size reduction, etc. I'd be marching on Washington myself, but I just don't see this being the need to start talking about the slippery slope - yet.
Because this is just the start.

>any more than to not be allowed to buy a fully auto weapon to fire off in my backyard.
Which is another ban you're apparently fine with.

>And, something tells me the ACTUAL number of people whose fun with their guns will be affected by this will be exceptionally small, as the average joe can't afford the costs of rapid fire shooting more than once in a very great while.
"Oh it's okay...the infringement of their constitutionally protected rights is only limited to a small number of people so the infringement is acceptable."

Yes, there’s cops outside my house right now. I ain’t opening that door no matter how much they knock

...

a few restrictions on our rights is okay as long as they don't take them all

So now everyone owns bump stocks? They are a novelty item that abuses the fuck out of your AR

wow this is a president. You know I voted for hilldawg, but I'm actually glad that Trump is president and i'll vote for him in 2020 because of this

It's not. This is the absolute state of /k/

>So now everyone owns bump stocks?
Of course not. But just because not everyone owns bump stocks that means they should be allowed to be banned.

>They are a novelty item that abuses the fuck out of your AR
So what? It's our fucking right to own one and abuse the fuck out of an AR if we feel like it.

Why are you justifying and normalizing an infringement upon our firearm rights?

...

oh shit user, gg

The CTR/Shareblue Shills and Payments:

beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&disbursement_purpose_categories=other&committee_id=C00578997&min_date=01-01-2015&max_date=10-05-2016

docquery.fec.gov/pdf/318/201607159020655318/201607159020655318.pdf#navpanes=0

thejidf.org

thejidf.org/2008/10/about-jidf.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

youtube.com/watch?v=7dGJDJoeAok

youtube.com/watch?v=yKrXr0v8uBM

>f Vegas wasn't reason to go full-grab

The deaths caused by rifles are statistically irrelevant. You're succumbing to emotional attachment to gun murders, as opposed to other types of deaths.

From 2011 to 2016, literally more people in the US were killed by melee weapons than rifles.

Yes exactly like that. But Trump gave noting away except perpetuating the idea of more infringement. Bump stocks should never have been legal and the background check process should be better.

>Asking the Justice Department to review the legality of bump stocks is the same thing as banning guns
You shills need to suck less at your job if you want a (You)
>in all fields

Bump stocks and binary triggers are just a way around the (unconstitutional, nonsensical) NFA, just like "pistol" versions of long guns and the "arm braces" that go on them.The only reason we can't have real machine guns legalized again is because too many rich OFWGs from the NRA have money invested in them. The shrinking pool of transferable MGs is a lucrative market. Ronald Reagan knew goddamn well what he was signing into law. If you own guns, the Republican, Democratic, (Gary Johnson) Libertarian, and Green Party all hate you. Hell, even if you don't own guns they most likely hate you. The NFA is an affront to the Second Amendment, and was upheld by a Supreme Court of sheltered 1930s New York Republican elitists who believed that "weapons with military purpose" protected by the Second Amendment meant Napoleonic muskets. Anyone who claims that machineguns and short barreled shotguns and rifles have no military purpose (you know, like, for use in a militia) is a liar and an idiot. Also, the NFA was almost written into law banning handguns as well, when most defensive uses are the victim using their handgun to ward off the criminal. There are very few gun laws that aren't all just bullshit.

As usual, let’s wait and see what actually happens. A couple weeks ago he was caving on DACA and was going to grant all illegals amnesty. He plays the long game. See what he says or does once the emotions of the week have faded and there are no more kids being coached to cry about guns on cnn.

WTF is that symbol where your "Anonymous" name should be?

>The only reason we can't have real machine guns legalized again is because too many rich OFWGs from the NRA have money invested in them. The shrinking pool of transferable MGs is a lucrative market.
THIS. I wish more people understood this.

WTF are you babbling about

So, whine about it then, it's actually more valid of a complaint than bitching about a workaround device that gave you a similar capability to skirt legal bounds being made illegal.

I'd also like to own an actual RPG, and I'm not happy about it, but I don't see the prevention of my ownership being the slope to losing other gun rights.

>regulates Bump stocks
>HAHA DRUMPF IS FINISHED! SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR GUNS AMERIMUTTS!

The absolute state of shariablue

This is shill shit. He has to play the game. He wont do shit about guns. Ill see ya in 3 months when nothing has happened.

OMG FUCK DRUMPF IM A DEMOCRAT NOW AND I FORGOT ABOUT DAVID HOGG

>Appoints supreme court judge who will supercede his actions upholding the 2nd amendment
Thats the best I can think of for the 4D argument.

Either way, still gonna ride out this tax cut happily. Can't vote Dems until the postmodernists grips of the party die.

t. shill

who voted for this absolute retard

Like Jeb "low energy" Bush?
Ted "the Delegate" Cruz?
Ben "Based Ben" Carson?
Rand "rank ass" Paul?

Yes exactly. Trump was the ONLY choice.

HODL

What happened?

He has to do something to appease the banshees, but uphold the constitution. So he is throwing them a bone and letting the DoJ decide if bump stocks and only bump stocks ar up held by the constitution, which they aren't since they are a none mandatory accessory of certain guns which allow faster firing. Removing bump stocks will not affect any current owners, only future owners. We only have to weather this until the next large war, but keep in mind that rights are almost never given back, only removed. All this erosion of "muh guns" will add up in decades.

>So because it doesn't infringe upon your rights personally, the infringement is acceptable?
No, it's because the device gave certain firearms the ability to mimic full-auto capability WHICH WAS ALREADY DEEMED ILLEGAL. It's like saying "I don't have a radar detector in my car, I have a speed trap detector" and expecting someone to believe it's anything different. Having something that lets you skirt legality on another issue isn't infringing on your rights, it's calling out your loophole.

>Because this is just the start.
Pure speculation. Proof, or don't keep saying this.

>Which is another ban you're apparently fine with.
If I could get one legally, I would, but I can't, so losing the ability to skirt legality isn't really breaking my heart.

>"Oh it's okay...the infringement of their constitutionally protected rights is only limited to a small number of people so the infringement is acceptable."
No, but I'm using the same argument we'd use about how it's unnecessary to legislate tranny bathrooms because despite a thousand cries they were necessary, they were used by a few freaks and that's it, so if they weren't given as a concession, it would have affected nearly nobody. You can't have it both ways, you know, regardless of where you stand.

oh look its acfag

...

>Except they're infringements on our firearm rights.
>right to buy bump stocks

Bump stocks are an accessory and not needed for a firearm to function. Bump stocks are also only made to work with ARs, none of the exotic rifles are compatible with bump stocks. Semi auto rifles can be turned into fully automatic with an internal change, going for bump stocks is for laymens.

>Yes, he bought into the "we must reduce rights every time there's a shooting."

There's a system in place and companies sought to overturn it by creating a new device for firearms; regulating falls under the constitution.

>It's not so bad. Nothing is really changing.
The frog said while slowly being boiled to death.

>almost dies at baseball practice
>can't fend off attack from faggot neighbor lover
>manlet

Boiling to death would hurt immensely about 1 second after you fell in the water. Find a better comparison faggot.

Not to burst your bubble, but they make bumpstocks for ARs AND AKs, and you could probably find a way to put an AR bumpstock on certain AR stock-adapted rifles, not to mention there are a lot of people who have made their own bumpstocks for guns like the SKS.