I'm a gun owner, I have an AR...I don't think everyone should have a constitutional right to own a gun.
I don't mind the rules getting tighter. It's not going to turn into the 1987 assault weapons ban and shrink supply and drive up costs to thousands of dollars per gun.
Just like our 'free speech' is limited in not being able to threaten presidential candidates and so forth, these changes would help keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
You sound reasonable. Hope youre not drowned out my extremists on either side.
I personally feel psychiatric evaluations should be part of our healthcare system (because mental health is health nonetheless.) And if you can't pass, you can't have a gun.
Thoughts?
You wanna know how we know you're nogunz?
As a dutch person I've talked to gun owners before one here because I couldn't wrap my head around the private possesion of fire-arms with high capactity mags, silencers and other things that would surpass the excuse of purely defending yourself etc.
I must say it's good to see a moderate opinion on the matter, but I am curious how you would feel (purely from a non-bias standpoint) about a buyback program like the australians had in the 90s, and how you would feel about mandatory traning for owners (let's say 5 to 10 courses on safety and responsible ownership).
Well go put it in your mouth then you fuckin shill.
I just went shooting yesterday it was great, I had a blast - I'm definitely not "MURRICA MUH GUNZ", and I don't think everyone should jump to that side in defense of our 'rights' either. It's not the right way to look at it.
>sniper rifle
>bb gun
my sides
Its a fucking air rifle.
*****WARNING**** ***Racism Detected***
Diversity Inclusive Violation code #SJW01NONIGNOGS321
Your thread has been flagged and marked not to contain a single African Negro. Please include at least one Negro or person of color in creating future threads. Asian don't count not brown enough sorry.
Thank you,
(SJWF) Social Justice Worriers Foundation Inc.
(SSF) Safe Space Federation
(STMC) The Stop Triggering Millenials Charity
(PPNC) the Poor Poor Nigger Corp.
That picture is of a fucking bb/airsoft rifle wtf
If all guns disappeared I would be ok with it.
Realistically it doesn't make sense to get rid of 'some guns' or 'most guns'. It has to be all or none.
If you want to think about it realistically, then you have to add in criminals also would refuse/hide their weapons. I'm not sure how you'd round up those weapons, but I'm assuming it would be a costly operation both in dollars and lives to accomplish.
Mandatory training and (probably psych evaluations) would be a great idea.
We already have lots of limits on the second amendment and laws in place to keep some people (felons, domestic abusers, etc) from getting guns. In a nation with so many guns and the freedom (generally) to own them, there will be accidents and tragedies. That's no reason to curtail our rights. That logic is like saying we need more limits on the first amendment because people get offended and butthurt over the smallest things.
In a free society, sometimes rights will be expressed in a negative way. You have to take the bad with the good
So much this. The right to beat arms for every civilian is fucking ridiculous.
You should at the very least have to take a class to teach how to care for the gun, basic shooting techniques and laws corresponding to the firearm they purchased.
It makes me weep every time someone dies by accidental discharge, or an obvious mental case shoots up a crowd.
Fucking idiots have the loudest voices
Biggest issue with this is everyone has a disorder now in modern psychology.
Oh also, supressors/silencers are nice for defense, because if someone invades your home...firing off a gun inside can damage your ears and it would make things a shitstorm for you and anyone else inside.
>'rights'
Why in quotes user?
I'm not trying to curtail everyone's rights, but if you had to take a mandatory safety class (at the very least), it'd be a way to ensure some extra level. The fact that the only thing standing between me and a new gun is the guy at my local FFL who could refuse to transfer it to me, is frightening.
On the plus side, it will alert neighbours of the peril. Causing them to call for back-up. And I'd suggest putting some earmuffs in your gun safe, that extra half-senconf of putting them on shouldn't slow you down that much.
Besides, a nice loud shot will scare of most intruders without the need to kill them (makes such a mess of the carpets).
They used to teach this in public schools.
i dont get that you need a drivers license to drive a car but no training at all to own a gun.
Well think about it, are you aware of how and when you lost your first amendment right to use speech to threaten a presidential candidate?
They did this without anyone's consent, it was passed and is law now. We had no say.
Why is that frightening to you?
There's also the background check. He could refuse, but he still has to run you through the system.
I think gun safety should be taught in every high school across the country, and students should get to handle unloaded firearms. However, I don't think safety classes should be mandated for adults. Some people don't need the classes, and I don't think the government has any business telling me i need more education. But I could live with some kind of training, however I can imagine it getting repetitive and wasteful as people buy more than one gun over time
>in a country with simmering race hate
Way to play into the Jewish media brainwashing you social media drone.
I understand that, same reason you cant use the 1st to incite people into violence. I understand the 2nd maybe could have some restrictions, but i dont know what they should be. Because none of the purposed solutions, besides more education, actually adds more protection to citizens and in fact hurts joe average who isnt an ass, but whats to purchase what he can afford.
I believe that everybody, even a convicted felon, has the right to defend their own lives with a firearm.
Tighter regulations won't stop criminals or crazies from getting guns. Even if it did, the result would be more creative ways to people.
It's frightening because that's the only system in place to refuse a gun to someone, and it's based solely on the FFL owner. We should have something more rigid in place, that's all.
Correct, I agree with you. Would love to come up with some reasonable restrictions.
That's just not true. The database can refuse as well. The dealer can't just ignore the background check. Atf says pass, fail or delayed
the pic is a joke obv lol
Well some ffl holders wont do transfers for people they dont know. And i dont really find that frightening, because the people going through ffl, are usually law abiding citizens. Crackhead bob doesnt go through an ffl
Sorry, I guess in this context I'm talking specifically about the scenario where someone who looks good on paper comes in, but may give off a bad vibe to the owner. It's completely subjective at that point, and to the system you're fine, but we know that's not always true. How do we ensure further safety there?
One problem I see is the extreme disparity between the "authorities" and the "people". One of the biggest reasons for the citizens to be well armed is to stop tyranny in its tracks. The "authorities" are supposed to fear mass uprising by the people as a way to keep them in check. So any one or ten or even 50 who go batshit and revolt, can be put down easily, but if the majority decides to take up arms, the "Government" should not stand a chance.
Now, let's look at any city in the US, and what is carried in their SWAT tank/truck. And they send out dozens of bullet-proof ultra warriors against the citizenry at a moment's notice. And that is just a police force. Not the military might of the USA, which if turned against its citizens would obliterate them immediately.
So, one quick check shows the government now has access to HUNDREDS of highly highly effective non-lethal "deterrents" which should make our "authrorities carrying guns against the citizenry a thing of the past. But almost NO-ONE is hollering for the cops to be disarmed and to ONLY carry non-lethal deterrents. Kind of odd that, eh?
If the government can easily attack people with fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, tanks, and so on, then what hope does the constitutional check of the people have in halting tyranny?
And how can you do it with due process?
It wouldnt be like that, there are more citizens than military/police. Plus factor in desertion rate, other countries, and the fact that everytime the government shoots a citizen, more people will go to the cause. The american government would be drasticallt weakened.
>social media drone
I'm going to use this term, user.
guns are not the only thing to kill lots of people with if you are crazy
en.wikipedia.org
a knife massacre, 33 dead, 100+ injured
That's what I'm wondering.
Perhaps citizens would have to enroll in safety courses, to learn basics. Just like motorcycle and motorvehicle training.
It might be enough to dissuade someone trying to go through official channels to obtain a firearm.
On the other hand, I feel like that would be just another stopgap, and the criminal marketplace would probably grow larger - although I can't say for certain.
Getting guns out the hands of anyone who has obtained them illegally will be the challenge.
True, but they are the easiest thing to obtain to inflict the most damage.
If all guns disappeared, there's no doubt that knives and other things would take their place. People are fucked up.
The argument here is to keep guns around, but find more creative ways of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people while still allowing any law abiding citizen to continue enjoying their rights.
Modern psychology basically exists to make money for pharmaceutical companies.
This is what happens the further you get from God, that we forget our own free will and call people who make bad decisions mental cases instead of just irresponsible people.
A responsible licence owner will use their best judgement, but sometimes you just can't judge a book by its cover.
imagine they had guns.
how many would have died ?
Well let us look at illinois. Im from here and you have to have a state specific id to buy guns/ammo/and to even have them in your house. The state police issue the id, and it takes a fucking while for it to come in and you have to renew it every 10ish years. I could see this implemented at the federal level, but remember Chicago is full of gun violence so...doesnt really work.
And then they bring in the air force and the bombers. The Government is a nasty apparatus that won't just give up if it collectively thinks it is right. There should NOT be a >>>HUGE
just keep the wrong people out and we're fine
>implying the government would do bombing runs on its own citizens
>implying everything would be fine if they did
for a shill you are a lousy one. I hope they didn't pay your too much.
That's interesting, and I wonder what percent of that gun violence in Chicago is done with illegal firearms.
I found this:
chicagobusiness.com
Pretty insane
define mentally ill.
prove your claim of citizenship.
fuck off cuck
My thoughts exactly
Well, if they dont have the id...it is an illegal firearm. And they are kinda tough on those ids.
Ok
well son if you would have to spend two years in the army, no certain members of your generation, all of you. I would have no problem with that.
you mean like Adam Lanza. he received mandatory training. did that help?
that's funny the brady bill was to be the solution to the problem. guess we got sold a dead donkey.
also you're a fucking drama queen.
those are bb guns
bet you don't get a lot.
by the way people drive these days the training isn't working.
he's a drama troll.
>doesn't specify what needs to change
>claims these changes will help keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
OP is a fag
compare traffic deaths in western countries to traffic deaths in countries where you dont need a drivers license e.b. egypt.
its like no 1 cause of death there.
>Getting guns out the hands of anyone who has obtained them illegally will be the challenge.
And we as legal gun owners should not have our rights infringed while that's figured out. And suggesting any further restriction in that respect is nothing more than an infringement on our rights. It will neither help reduce crime or save lives.
you can't use the first to incite but it still happens. should we place heavy restriction on the first?
remember the dallas police were there to protect BLM's first amendment right.
now they are dead. if there was no first they would be alive right now.
44,000 gun laws
some restriction
pick one
Check out that pdf, it was nuts
>(1) Chicago’s violence problem is directly linked to the number of illegal guns available in the City;
(2) Sixty percent of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago were first sold in other states, many with weaker gun laws; and
(3) A small handful of gun stores, three from Cook Country and one from Gary, Indiana, continue to be responsible for a disproportionate number of crime guns recovered on Chicago’s streets
>And if you can't pass, you can't have a gun.
They already have mental checks and they are relatively ineffective. Doesn't do its intended purpose
high cap mags, silencers
People like using them at the range. Mags so you don't reload every 2 seconds. Silencers so it's easier on the ears
>safety class
ehl o ehl
How in the hell would this curb gun related crime? Oh wait, it won't.
he is federally licensed. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??????????????
European here
>sniper rifle
kekking
I think anybody at any time should be able to buy anything they like and own anything at anytime.
People try to play with others lives too much and that's pat of the tension causing mother fuckers to snap.
I kind of don't even believe we need police and damn sure don't by the whole victim-less crime shit we got flooding our prisons.
Just because those guns were originally purchased in other states doesn't mean the criminals using them went there to purchase them. It's a felony to sell/buy guns in one state when the purchaser is from another state without an FFL from the purchasers state transferring it to the purchaser
Should we ban cum?
>some asshole has gurl
>they have sex, he accidentaly cums in her
>gurl has abortion
>cause: accidental discharge
That restriction is already on the 1st man. Of course criminals will still use do it. That is why, if they dont die you can slap another charge on them. The one thing that i think could help is called exile laws. But the dems think the laws are racist because they might unfairly target black people, but it doesnt.
Seeing as how it wasnt rioters that shot the cops, i dont see how your example makes sense.
what's it like to be this ignorant?
>The right to beat arms for every civilian is fucking ridiculous.
You do know we don't have that right?
There is extensive background checks.
It's really bull shit and just leaving criminals and cops with all of the weapons.
we're not talking about Egypt, are we?
funny, we just had a sexual harassment test at work. video and a test. easy right? wrong. the test questions were written in Latin.
what were you saying about a test?
>Yes hand in your guns like good goyims
Coming from a country with incredibly strict guns laws and pretty much no gun violence despite having one of the highest gun-to-inhabitant ratios in Europe, I completely agree.
Even simple regulations can do wonders. I spent around 5-6 weeks getting my hunting rifle, most of that was spent doing a thorough background check by the police. When I go shooting I buy the ammunition there, it's registered to my weapon and I can't buy for any other calibers than the ones I own and can prove I own.
Fun fact: Anders Behring Breivik and I use the same shooting range. They've got the complete lists of when he was there and how much he shot every time.
There's a catch there though, we don't have the same paranoia that Americans seem to. Weapons are restricted to 3-4 bullets in magazine and chamber, and no automatics. Shotguns can't have more than 2 shells in them at any one time.
Psychiatric evaluations come into play. If I had been talking a lot about suicide on social media, been threatening or otherwise acted irresponsibly, I would've been denied. If I had visited a psychiatric hospital I would also probably have been denied as a safety precaution. Not because I'd be a threat to others, but to myself.
>be in boy scouts as a lad
>go to summer camp
>take guns badge class
>get learnt how to operate firearms safely
>shoot .22 rifles all day every day
Nowadays I bet the sjw's got them to remove those badges because >muh chillunz being allowed to use guns
the police will be where ever a BLM protest is being held.
can you imagine how they are going to feel after dallas?
stop the protests, you stop the problem.
Own three rifles: 2 bolt action rifles, one for match shooting and the other for hunting, as well as a shotgun for hunting.
Have fired a few pistols, but since they are not hunting weapons they are incredibly hard to get, requiring a LOT of paperwork, background checks and proof of membership in a pistol club for several years.
>country decides it's a good idea to start bombing their own civillians
>country gets BTFO by every other country for being a retard
BLM got upgraded to domestic terrorists now, didn't they? Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, BLM..
you government and mine ain't exactly the same.
>implying police are a part of the right to assemble
Where in the bill of rights does it say a cop presence has to be around when you assemble? Having cops there is a restriction to the 1st, already. Your example is shit.
Norfag here again. There is one thing that the American system does well though: Nobody will ever invade you. They'll not be fighting the armed forces, they'll fight the entire nation and so many people will be armed and competent in firearm operation.
If my country gets invaded again, we don't really have that safety, we'll just have to go back to guerilla tactics and hold them off until NATO comes in.
They probably have badges for hugging and checking privilege. I'm amazed the boy scouts havent been purged from history as evidence of the patriarchy.
>we don't have the same paranoia that Americans seem to
>Shotguns can't have more than 2 shells
That seems pretty damn paranoid. And stupid. That's like having a law that sticks of dynamite are legal, but you can't carry more than 2 per satchel. OK...until the day the guy is going to make it rain. You've accomplished nothing, but restricted everyone.
They have to deploy police, protests always get ugly real quickly.
you idiots want to kill private sells repeal the nfa and we can talk
Which means it is already a restriction to the first? A restriction caused this shooting, not a lack of restrictions.
That's just the thing though, isn't it? Your government appears malevolent, mine's very passive.
But we see this paranoia running through the American populace constantly: Look at the women who feel threatened by everything to the rednecks who think a non-white president is going to nuke the US because.. Just because.
I generally love Americans and I support your right to own guns (why not? Guns are awesome!), but it always devolves into the bullshit argument of "If we take away the guns, only criminals will have them".
Actually, the rationale behind it is that you only need two shells for hunting. If you waste those two, the birds are already too far away. Really, it's to avoid wasted shots that can potentially harm other people in the vicinity.
How is that a bullshit argument? It will take generations for all the firearms to be rounded up in America if there was a ban, in this time, yes only criminals will have the weapons.
What caused it is niggers thinking they can join in on a 'protest' and go looting, and be fully justified in doing so because every sjw is behind blm
...
And they'll cost in the thousands of dollars, something most criminals can't afford.
What OP is expressing is classic authoritarianism. It's precisely the exact opposite of the entire premise of the founding of the United States.
"I gots mine, you don't get yours, I feel safer." That's about it.
Governments feel safer when they have the guns, and you don't. They feel safer when they have the political power and you don't.
The great joke is that everyone debates guns, government is going after EVERYTHING.
Speech, assembly, security in person and possessions, elimination of due process.
How many times a day more do you think the EPA is kicking people out of their homes or fining them for bullshit they made up a year ago, vs. gun enforcement? How much more often is someone from the government violating someone's privacy than arresting someone for having a banned weapon? It's not even close.
There is virtually no gun crime in the US compared to everything else and the population as a whole. It's a great distraction. That too, the government enjoys. Stay docile and unfocused masses. Fight amongst yourselves about magazine capacity and various arbitrary aspects of weapons. We'll just be taking over your lives.
this explains a loot about op..