This thread will not get replies

>This thread will not get replies
i wonder why

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pBf4MyqW550
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

try engaging the replies so that it keeps being bumped up

Bump

Probably because it's not a bait thread with a picture of some nigger and you didn't use the term "wh*Te boi"

You're right most shillbots don't have ocr capabilities.

>Keep guns away from dangerous people
SHALL NOT INFRINGE

lazy beaner

mental-case detected

Next sentence:
>don't want gun control

So it's meaningless.

bump

>'Dangerous' people
Define dangerous. Cause in a few years it will be this
>People that want to own a weapon to defend themselves are now considered dangerous and now cannot own weapons

maybe you should include an OP and not post memes only like it's reddit.

Good to see Trump and Pence doing the right thing again. Caving to pressure from Progressives never gets you anywhere.

care to elaborate more info?

Setting up the 2nd to be infringed still counts as infringment desu

>bad hombre
what is white?

It would be more appropriate to say "keep dangerous people away from guns." That is, putting them back in the mental institutions which Progressive courts pulled them out of in the 1960s.

>mental health reform and to keep guns away from dangerous people

So, pretty much keep guns away from democrats

Don't we already know what happens when they get a gun in their hand?

Bottom line is US gun owners will not be disarmed. Turn a third of the country into criminals and see what happens.

>NRA and conservatives will cuck out yet again because they're afraid of standing up to leftists

I'm been the reversed psy-kicked, all a G.

Which is why it does not matter WHAT politicians say or what laws they pass at this point. US gun owners will not be disarmed. We grew up hearing about the “6 million” herded into boxcars. We read about “How we burned in the camps...”. There will be no boxcars. There will be no camps. Not here. Not ever.

So just WHO decides who is dangerous? CNN? Sorry, just count me skeptical. Am I dangerous? I have never been arrested in my life. Any attempt at Civilian Disarmament and I will be as dangerous as I can get.

Before the 1960s? It was mostly family members getting people involuntarily committed along with police taking obviously crazy homeless people off the streets.

Today, family and friends can call the local police office dozens of times about a very mentally ill person and nothing will be done about it until they shoot up a school. Today, homeless people who suffer from severe delusions and/or drug addiction are left to inflict substantial self-harm (and sometimes harm to others) on the streets.

Throw it back in there faces!

I'm sure if they had a great meeting it's because in private the NRA backs gun control. They backed the NFA 1934, FFA 1938 and the GCA 1968.

The NRA was controlled opposition then and they still are. They only care about firearms when it comes to corporate interests. Hell, they suggested that BATFE review the legality of bump stocks after Vegas.

I am a member because of the work of the NRA-ILA. Beyond that I don't trust them at all. I do support the GOA. Gun Owners of America. They are pretty much 2a absolutists.

You're a fucking idiot

Goddam delusional gun grabbers make me sick. They think they can con politicians into passing laws that will result in getting other people to disarm us. Not fucking likely. We have over 300 million firearms and over a Trillion rounds of ammunition. If just 1% of us seriously refuse to be disarmed it cannot be done.

It should be painfully obvious to anyone on this board that our gummint cannot not even allow “the peaceful, appropriate transfer of power” without corruption and crime at the highest level but we are going to allow the government to decide arbitrarily who is dangerous? Uh, FISA Court, anybody?

I have never had any encounter with Law Enforcement other than a ticket for 55 mph in a 45 mph zone a decade ago. Am I dangerous? Try to disarm me and you will find out.

It's been defined, friend.
>A person may be dangerous to self and others when he or she have recently threatened or attempted suicide or some serious bodily injury. He or she may have demonstrated danger of substantial and imminent harm to himself and/ or others through some recent act, attempt or threat of the same. ‘Dangerous to self’ may also include a situation where a person is unable to cater to his nourishment, shelter or self protection without supervision or assistance of another person. Without such supervision and adequate treatment, it is probable that the mentally ill individual may succumb to death, substantial bodily injury or serious physical debilitation or disease.

>An example of Missouri Law. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.040.9 “No committed person shall be unconditionally released unless it is determined through the procedures in this section that the person does not have, and in the reasonable future is not likely to have, a mental disease or defect rendering the person dangerous to the safety of himself or others.”

Am I the only one disappointed?

I really wanted to use my musket & put some holes in some red coats.

Tree of liberty needs watering.

>If just 1% of us seriously refuse to be disarmed it cannot be done.
You're right. But only if people actually fight back. I used to think gun owners would stand up and fight but not anymore. I've talked to my dad and lots of his friends about this. They are all gun owners, vets, pro 2a and they understand the subtext of the 2nd amendment. that's it's the duty of the people to fightback.

I wanted their perspective because they are boomers and they have the same mentality as run of the mill pro gun Conservatives across America. I asked 'when do we as citizens have the right and responsibility to start shooting politicians, cops and soldiers' and the response was interesting.

In most of their minds, my dad's included, they envisioned a time when government would act outside the law in a overtly tyrannical way and that the majority of Americans would be on their side pushing back against an authoritarian regime. The reality is that it will be done legally and the non-White masses, and the minority of Whites that are shit-libs, will support it. Most elites, including most Republican politicians, support taking guns away from citizens. The courts are on their side. Apparently so is the executive branch.

In this context most of these conservatives that I discussed this don't agree, that under these specific circumstances, that we have the moral right to fight back. Not when it's done legally and with the consent of the majority.

If the Left and the establishment handles this correctly I think the 2nd amendment may go out with a whimper. At this point I would no longer fight. There's nothing left in America to save. I don't want to save a nation full of non-Whites that have enacted 3rd world economic and social polices. Do you want to fight to save Brazil 2.0? I'm at the point where i'd rather fight to destroy the US and break it up than fight to save it.

You explained a world in which many of us do not want to live, making the job of fighting back even moreso our duty. We do exist and we will not be disarmed without death.

I think the proper response against this type of reasoning is to call out the 100 deaths the constitution has died at the hands of the scotus, which should be able to reach that monkey hind brain of even the most apathetic conservative boomers. What you call 'legally' is in fact not legal, but to see that requires someone to see the truth of their government and not its nominal republican form. Every single conservative in America knows something has gone wrong but can't express what.

I know a lot of gun owners. Among most of the gun owners I know I am perhaps the LEAST passionate about refusing to be disarmed. We have been paying attention to the gun grabbers for years and have our eyes wide open. We realize our government has seriously gone off the rails and our arms are the only thing keeping it within the limits it still respects, which are damn few as it is.

“To do nothing in the face of evil IS evil.”

You're delusional or just plain naive if you think that "mental illness" won't be whatever they define it as. It's the beginning of a slippery slope, and you're a dumb faggot if you don't see that

>keep guns away from dangerous people
>don't want gun control

That can be changed anytime.

You're certainly not dissuading the idea that you're a nutcase ready to fly off the rails, user.

That's the thing that makes me laugh my ass off about all of this deflection.

By most people's standards, being right wing is a "risk" these days. Being a Sup Forumstard? Dangerous.

But le God Emperor is totally legit and not going to take your guns, guy. It's sensible gun control :) Sensible. Just keeping it away from the REAAAL crazies!

Yeah, and so can the constitution and bill of rights too, technically.
Think of what would happen if there was an attempt to amend away the 2nd.
Think of what would happen if there was an attempt to change what "dangerous" meant.

>dangerous people.

The NRA is now repeating fiction

youtube.com/watch?v=pBf4MyqW550

Republicans and the NRA have permanently banned more guns in the last 50yrs than democrats, At least the Clinton ban was only temporary