Why do liberals hate guns so much?

Why do liberals hate guns so much?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
youtube.com/watch?v=VShMWlEyK1g&list=PLqc9ugNX-JFqTswaRiCizoWyP-oNX4xN7
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They don't. Only "liberals" do.

Not all liberals. They hate how people use guns to kill people, they don't hate the gun itself.

Because freedom.

Liberals just flock around anyone who promises them "free" stuff and adopt their ideals. If Hillary had said carbon emissions were a bigger deal and wanted to ban any vehicle that got less than 20mpg city, you know they'd hop on that train in a heartbeat too. They don't care what rights get sacrificed in the process, they just want a free lunch on the dime of those of us who actually work.

This. True, classical, liberals don't hate guns. It's the modern leftist, and to be more specific they like to have guns in the hands of their controlled party but not in any of the opposition's hands, in this case being heterosexual white Christian conservative males' hands

Same reason why racists exist. People fear what they do not understand.

Leftist liberals are literally gun racists.

this

I think guns are cool as fuck, but I'm glad that my country has strict gun regulations

>pretending to know somebodies motives

Speculate all you want, you just look stupid when you treat an assumption as a fact

>Leftist liberals are literally gun racists.
This is actually a great analogy. Liberals hate black scary guns, the one with big di-magazines. They don't hate the paler ubiquitous hunting guns or shotguns so much even though those have more destructive potential.

Nice independence get.

Are you trying to say MUH NOT ALL LIBERALS or are you honestly trying to say that the huge majority of liberals don't fear (and want to ban) firearms?

Like are you trying to argue that the huge majority of liberals don't want to ban guns or increase regulation/vetting/mental health/background checks, etc?

Not free, you thick skulled nimrod, paid for with our tax money... Ya know the money the govt robs us of to fund their private lives and oil wars. We don't want a handout, just something worthwhile from our taxes.

I guess the first one, but i'm pretty soft on the matter.

the whole left vs right thing is fucking bullshit

people will say/believe anything about the other side just to have a dig at them.

us vs them makes you both look retarded

Most liberals of my acquaintance have never shot a gun. Hate stems from fear, and fear from ignorance.

You are a retard if you think that racists hate black people because they don't understand them. Whites who live in pure lily white areas are the least racist. It's the people who have to live around blacks that come to hate them as the violent clowns they are.

easy, because you can't force people to do things against their will if they are armed. Disarming the populous is a precursor to slavery, which is their ultimate goal. The government is the master, you are the slave.

I'm a liberal and I do not hate guns. I consider owning guns a personal liberty.

We don't. I'm a liberal and many of my friends are liberal and we all have guns. I just took delivery of my new Vepr 12. It's awesome

Wrong on all counts.

i fucking love guns but..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

where im from you can get 7years for possession of a gun. there has never been a mass shooting a school shooting and rarely ever an innocent bi-standard

They fear anything they can't control.

Because "liberals" is an adopted but bullshit term used by fascists. And the reason leftist fascists hate guns is because they are authoritarians who want to control the lives of others in every way. What you think, say, and do.
And the only thing stopping them from accomplishing their ultimate goal of complete control over your life, is the fact that people can defend themselves with guns. Its why all previous, current and future fascist nations immediately ban all firearms from the populations.
Guns stop fascists, period.

Is it only liberals who don't want to get shot?

Propaganda.

They are basically just big dumb children but if you ever try to discipline them everyone flips their shit and you are literally hitler for wanting to keep your car windows intact

People actually believe this

fucking wow

Because Fox News says so.

Most of my liberal friends own guns, often nice ones.

this

Cuz they kill Commies and liberals are Commies.

People actually believe the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment holy shit

I love guns. I just hate you.

i'm a liberal, don't hate guns. I just want mandatory training for every 5 guns bought, licenses that need renewed. background checks are not enough.

Does believing one particular thing make you a "liberal"? Fucking fed up of this ridiculous left/right paradigm. Common sense seems to have gone out the fucking window.

do you really think you can stop the government with that ar?

Do you really think you can stop the government with that musket?

there's things I'm liberal about
there's things i'm conservative about

stop trying to put everyone in a box to make your side seem bigger

answering a question with another question

250 years is a long time ago

>They don't. Only (((liberals))) do.

>the whole left vs right thing is fucking bullshit
I agree in principal but in practice it's very real. The whole "your team vs my team" thing permeates all human cultures, and left vs right is no different. It just happens that the left team's gameplan includes being afraid of and banning guns.

Most people aren't smart enough to just be trolling the other side, as you say. Most of them really believe the shit they say, whether it's that abortion is murder or guns are bad, healthcare, rights, taxation, pick your poison. The teams have chosen their opinion, and the majority of people on a given team actually believe in those things, or else they wouldn't be part of the team to begin with.

Racism isn't limited to one geographic or economic area my dude. You don't have to get burned by fire to know it's hot.

Excellent argument, I'm overwhelmed by facts.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

I'll bite even tho not liberal.

Guns for all don't make much sense anymore. They were good to have back when native americans were a threat and slaves could rebel.

Now the only ones to defend against are other people with guns... I need to take a test to drive a car because it can be dangerous for others, but buying a gun, nah, no checks.

Bottom line - people are all sorts of fucked up, giving them guns without any safety measures naive at best.

You uh... ever heard of this place called Afghanistan?

No the AR is just for popping libcucks like you in the event of a balkanized dystopia. Bombs are what you use against government agents

>“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>- Benjamin Franklin

"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should have a gun"

i used to but now guns can be usefull in the upcoming war against muslims here in Europe

>libcuck

you're one of those people then

>incorrect quote
>What's more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes--and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier--as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance--and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

>In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.

>lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

Do you really think you can start a revolution with that ar?

By this logic, the state itself should be disbanded. This is an anarchist credo.

no, you can't. you're gonna end up dead when you start waving it about

I don't and I'm more worried about the police having tanks than I am about my neighbor having more guns than he "needs."

are you planning on starting a revolution?

>Now the only ones to defend against are other people with guns...

Not true. Think of the disparity in size and strength between a 6' 2", 220 lb male and a 5' 115 lb female. If that man tries to rape that woman, there isn't shit she can do about it without a weapon.

But if she has a handgun in her purse she has an equalizer.

It's more effective than a tazer or mace, and doesn't rely on physical strength like a knife. 300,000 people per year use a firearm to prevent themselves from being victimized by a criminal in the US.

Revolutions have been won with less...

this is the only convincing argument in the thread

>the only ones to defend against are other people with guns
Nobody's ever been attacked by somebody with a knife or stick or fists? No woman's ever been raped by someone not holding a gun? Nobody's ever been assaulted by anything but a gun?
Also
>no checks
All guns sold or transferred through an FFL in any state, and guns sold or transferred privately in 12 states require a background check.

Sounds like your opinion is formed on some pretty skewed information, user. And you're making these statements like they're irrefutable fact. Kind of scary to me. I'm glad I have a gun in case I meet people like you.

>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to say what I want"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to vote for my officials no matter what color or sex I am"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able decline unlawful search and seizure"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to deny soldier's quartering in my home"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to not incriminate myself in court"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to be treated humanely in prison"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to be spared from laws enacted in places I don't live"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to have a speedy trial"
>"these dudes from 250 years ago said I should be able to have a trial by jury"
You see where this sarcasm leads?

I'm too lazy to dig it up but if you really care you can research yourself why the federal government wouldn't ever win a civil war. There's just too many guns and too many people. Even if 1% of the population decided to take up arms against the government they'd never be able to squash the fighting. It's not about "winning" just the fact that you couldn't stop it.

He's making the same point regardless of adding all the extra background info.

>but buying a gun, nah, no checks.
Why do you jews find the need to constantly lie?

t. never bought a gun

I am a liberal democrat and own a few guns. I don’t like gun show loopholes and mentally ill having access to them.

Because they can't accept the fact that their laws don't prevent criminals from doing whatever the fuck they want.

Most liberals have so many crimes and shit they did to hurt people, they are afraid of being shot by honest people.

Have you ever even seen a form 4473?

No.

Pepper spray is the preferred rape deterrent mainly because it's a lot easier to use than any gun, you don't have to aim directly and you don't need to overcome the "fear of shooting someone" or being in the wrong.

That said, I'm not against guns being licensed to citizens, just the way it is now doesn't make sense.

...

Not requiring a background check for personal transfers is fine, the government should not track every gun.

Barring the "mentally ill" from owning a gun has immense possible ility for abuse. I would only consider it in cases where a person has been judged criminally insane at trial. At that point the person is a felon already and is therefore already barred from gun ownership.

Vigilantism is a separate issue from gun rights.

>everything I know about guns I learned from watching the Daily Jew: The Musical

An assailant can shrug off pepper spray. It might just make them angry and make the attack more violent.

An assailant s not going to shrug off being shit center mass.

Not to mention, mace can drift back into the victim's eyes and mouth and prevent them from continued resistance.

Ask the CDC report that came out after Sandy Hook (2013). Even they identify a firearm as giving "the best chance if victim survival.

Sorry, but you're wrong about this.

I don't think that it's an invalid point though

should you keep every amendment?

How many have been added and removed?
Serious question

youtube.com/watch?v=VShMWlEyK1g&list=PLqc9ugNX-JFqTswaRiCizoWyP-oNX4xN7


i'm still waiting, for my chance, it's been a very long time, been sitting in a very long line, people all around me staring at me with their mind, crime happening, the police don't even really try, why would i even bother crying, cryings for the miserable, people, with no vision or no sight, seen me in a vision then your mine, i'm literally fine, find and you shall seek well, the sequel, the sequel is pre will, don't get it twisted, from that far, we came this close, we clearly missed it, we nearly hit it, the fairy tale, is very stale, hail mary frigid, don't matter if you get burried with it, or if you eat berries with it, it's all a scam to begin with, you dip shits livin in wonderland, understand this and you just might understand, but it's too bad, it's too late, and it's over man..,,,,

I disagree. I think they should. It’s required when transfer a car, should be the same for gun.

Isn't part of why Chicago has so much gun violence because they can buy guns at gun shows 1 hour away in Indiana?

There has only one that has ever been removed. It was the last time you over-reaching faggots decided to ban something. And last time the government decided to ban something, the Government decided to murder people to enforce it.

The Daily Jew? Dafaq. Nigger lay off Hannity’s dick for while. Your gapped butthole is making you crazy.

If you are on disability for mental illness, you shouldn’t be able to own a gun. Too many retards who are obviously mentally have access to them.

Absolutely not. You have to ship any firearm through an FFL holder in your state and would have to go through the same background check as if you were buying it in your own state.

You're confusing progressives and liberals. California is full of progressives not liberals. All this gun control nonsense comes out of ca

Availability of firearms doesn't have much to do with gun crime.

I live in a place where guns outnumber people, and we have a homicide once every few years in my state. Chicago's issues with violence correlate a lot more with race and poverty than they do with numbers of guns.

Against a tyrannical government. Yes.

It seems like it's less the actual mental illness itself and more an issue with the prescription they're on for it. An extreme amount of these shooters are on something like beta blockers or coming off them or just stopped taking them.

>no checks
>wrong because 12 out of 50 states have "background checks"
Lol, that means I'm 76% right. And those "background checks" aren't shit. They basically check that you've not been labelled batshit crazy by the state, but other than that you don't have to prove anything.

>Kind of scary to me. I'm glad I have a gun
Scared people with guns, lol. Makes sense.

I guess they just don’t understand the necessity for them. They’re idealists really, they think that taking away guns will solve all the country’s problems. Problems that are caused by people. Liberals don’t want to admit that the root problem isn’t the catalyst used to cause violence and dismay, but instead the person themself. They believe people are inherently good and will “go bad” if they’re given access to certain means.

>Chicago's issues with violence correlate a lot more with race and poverty than they do with numbers of guns.
I don't know about that man, there's a lot worse places with similar (or worse depending on your opinion on the matter) racial makeups that don't have close to the amount of gun crime. There's definitely some factors going on in Chicago related to violent crime involving guns that goes beyond just poverty and race.

that just doesn't hold water

Then how do you explain all of the places with firearms which have near zero murder rates?

such as?

Because they kill black people

Just going to say it again, have you heard of Afghanistan?

Dedicated people armed with 50 year old Soviet weapons held off an international coalition of first world militaries for the last 16 years.

>An assailant can shrug off pepper spray
Lol, I take it you've never been pepper sprayed. You should try it before talking about it.

>victims of sandy hook would have a better chance of resisting if they had guns
No shit sherlock.
They'd also have a better chance if the shooters didn't have guns.

Black Rifles Matter

usa =/= afghanistan

I live in northern Indiana and yes, most of Chicago’s guns are coming from Lake and Porter Country Indiana.

They have a lot of gun violence in Gary too. It used to be he murder capital. Still ranks high.

Most of the mountain west US, places like Wyoming and Montana. There are enormous numbers of firearms here, but few murders. If guns enable crime, it stands to reason that more guns=more crime, but that's not the case here.

What I'm saying is that the problem lies with Chicago and it's people, not the presence of firearms.

I'm not saying I have the answers. But I don't think the issue is as simple as it just being shitty.

how???

The root of Chicago's gun violence is pretty well known.
There's currently a power struggle going on between drug gangs. It has nothing to do with the availability of guns.

And they how do they act on this hatred? By taking guns away from more and more people using pushing general laws against the people who they deem mentally unfit, that unfairly effects innocent gun owners, in a continuous effort to put everyone on a gun owner blacklist untill no one can own a gun at which point they ban guns outright and no one can oppose them. Fuck you, left bitch.