Remember when the US banned alcohol?

Remember when the US banned alcohol?
How'd that turn out?
What happened after prohibition started?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?_r=0
youtube.com/watch?v=qKk45i9DzDA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What , a ban on people thats on the terrorist watch list?

If you love your guns then dont end up on one

That was a plot to push gasoline instead of ethanol.

Children as young as 8 are on the no fly list.

Ted Kennedy is on the no fly list.

There is no due process and no way to repeal.

have you ever huffed gas i have before ive also been knocked out with chloroform and i have inhaled ether

>nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?_r=0

Even babies are on the list.

People got angry and pointed guns at the president and told him to give us back our alcohol and so he did and apologized for drinking most of it.

See, if they took our guns away that wouldn't be a problem.

Why do you need an assault rifle to defend your home?

One of my friends is on the list because his name matches that of someone from some animal rights terrorist group. Please do some research before saying stupid things.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Well Ted did kill someone

Why do you need access to a car that goes over the speed limit?

Because it is the most effective weapon for home defense.

If the watch list violated due process then the no-fly policy would already be a constitutional issue because the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to travel is a constitutional right. Sounds to me like your friend's just a radical dogfucker.

Why do people NEED cigarettes. They kill way more people every year, and 2nd hand smoke also kills people and pets

>2nd hand smoke also kills people and pets

Crack a window.

How many mass run overs by car with over 10 casualties happened in the us last year compared to mass shootings
Can't you just use a handgun?
At least your answer is not stupid
I'm not going to bother responding to someone so limited

Faggot

What's stupid is a Romanian lecturing an American on what he needs, pining for an argument as if he's the first moron that's ever tried to rationalize concessions.

There aren't going to be any concessions. Your arguments are all shit and your lack of personal responsibility would be traitorous, if you were in fact a citizen here. So please fuck off.

Handguns are just a compromise to a rifle

There is a reason why our SWAT teams use M4s (Police/Military version of AR15) to clear houses.

Of course a handgun will work in a home defense situation, but a rifle can have a light, optic, greater accuracy, higher capacity magazine (in case of multiple robbers/attackers) and a sling which makes the gun harder to take away from the owner.

I would choose an AR15 for home defense over any other weapon. Shotgun included.

I leave you with the king
youtube.com/watch?v=qKk45i9DzDA

>Use your handgun
I see where you're coming from mate but it's really looking like you've never held a gun or even know the difference and applications of firearms

>need
kys for thinking you know anything about American gun ownership.

lets just ban everything that isnt an ak 47 we'll all be protected

It's okay because of Australia.

nobody wants to prohibit guns completely. No country in the world really has no lawful guns in the civillian population.
Some people just want tiered licensing like you have for motorcycles in Europe. You do a course, some background checks and you get a licence. Mental people can't get licenses.
It would remove some of the fatal domestic violence shootings, road rage shootings, mentally ill shootings etc.
You can probably still have your AR15.
I'm an Australian and have a bolt action and a glock pistol

>if you love your rights then you should give up your right to due process and be able to have you rights stripped away from you by being put on secret watchlist that there is no due process for.

on one side it's undeinable that there is a lot of gun crime in the usa, but before we tackle the issue of gun crime and gun control we must tackle the sociodemographic bubble around it
most gun crime is reported in such a way that inflates statistics, for example any shooting with more than 3 people involved is considered a mass shooting, or the fact that suicides are counted as "deaths to gun violence". When we adjust for these factors and the fact that black people overwhelmingly commit most of the gun crime, especially in gang violence (that contributes to the mass shooting statistics) we can understand that america hasn't got a gun problem but a nigger problem, and that current legislation trying to take away the guns from law abiding white citizens is nothing but gun grabbing democrat trash that should be promptly fought with a clamor of "Shall not be infringed".

Current gun control laws vary a lot from state to state, but the important part is that cizitens who abide by the law are being stripped of their god given right to bear arms in the name of security, ironically enough all these gun control laws do is put dents in the freedom of the regular good willed people, while leaving criminals that are willing to infringe the law anyway to obtain guns freely. How many times has a gun free zone stoped a crime? How many times will terrorists attack unarmed civilians while the blame is put on the law abiding citizens? Paris was proof that tight gun control laws like the ones in europe is futile, as the terrorists simply smuggled weapons illegally from a third world country without giving a fuck about the gun control laws. So what happened is that now we have unarmed civilian populatons at mercy of terrorists and criminals.
Before we think about banning guns we must think about banning immigrants and niggers, mass deportation would be safer for the general populace than gun control.

SHALL

>Romania
Of course a gypsy wouldn't understand free, self-determination, and the right of self defense.

>before we tackle the issue of gun crime and gun control we must tackle the sociodemographic bubble around it
you know legislators can create legislation which addresses multiple issues at the same time?

nigger have you been on social media? People keep saying "ban guns ban all rifles ahhhh!" They aren't thinking of processes like the one you posted. They literally want to just straight up ban guns. Which would be impossible since there are millions of guns on the street that anybody can obtain illegally.

If people want to choose AR-15's for home defense, godspeed, but:

A handgun can have a light, optic, and high capacity magazines. It can also be retracted closer to the body when turning narrow corners, which eliminates the need for a sling because a close combatant cannot simply grab you by the barrel.

So gun control only for niggers and stricter punishment for infringement of such laws?
I'm down.

Also remember to give medals to law abiding citizens that put down feral niggers instead of demonizing them.
Based ZimZam is an american hero, and I hope I can one day be one too.

>and the right of self defense.
all countries recognize the right to proportional self defence.
In australia you can certainly use force likely to cause death/grevious bodily harm if you fear the same, provided that it's reasonably necessary.
Technically you can shoot someone in self defence in Australia (that's how police/security do it lawfully).
It's just our licenses and rules pertaining to guns are geared towards them being used for hunting/target practice.

ONE POST OP THREAD!
IT'S A SLIDE THREAD!
IGNORE! REPORT! SAGE!

Based Spaniard
That's not the argument there. The argument is that before you take away people's right to self defense, you should pursue all other viable means including actually addressing the problem in the first place. Gun laws will curb "gun violence" and gun related problems, it doesn't stop homicide, murder, rape, suicide, or all the underlying issues at hand, it just make defenseless victims.

>People keep saying "ban guns ban all rifles ahhhh!"
you american's can't do anything by half measures, you polarise every issue.
There is a middle ground between no guns and too many guns, of any type for everyone who wants them.
Some sort of consistent across the states licensing/training system woudl cover it. Keeping criminals, mentally ill from lawfully getting guns which would reduce alot of forseeable shootings (although obviously not nearly all because there are so many guns out there in your community).

I'm not going to wait for someone breaking into my home to flash a knife at me or nearly knock me unconscious before I apply "proportional self defense". So what you're saying is that some 75 year old woman should be forced to defend herself from criminals in hand to hand? Fuck that and fuck you

>my sensible middle groups
KYS

>before you take away people's right to self defense,
nobody wants to do that, everyone agrees you can defend yourself.
It's just the people that lawfully get guns needs to be regulated so we don't have foreseeable shootings like mentally ill and angry people legally buying guns.
That would greatly reduce the amount of suicides/shootings you have and good people like me and you can still have guns provided we jump through a few hoops.
I certainly have some guns in australia and go out shooting boar all the time.

It can be argued to death either way

>So what you're saying is that some 75 year old woman should be forced to defend herself from criminals in hand to hand?
clearly it would be proportionate and reasonable for someone of smaller stature to use a tool like a firearm.
But they should be fit and proper to possess that firearm and licence. So the muslims, crazies, criminals have trouble getting legal firearms in the first place which would thin the numbers of crazies with guns.

I love guns, I hate the gun grabbing laws in Europe, most particularly Spain.
I hope I can move the the US of A where I can be free and own all the guns I want and shoot them and collect them unquestioned.

I hope to be able to defend myself if the situation demand it, unlike in Spain where I'd go to jail for killing a home invader even if I feared for my own life.

I don't want to live in a socialist shithole where the populace is stripped of it's right to defend itself.
And I don't want to see America turn into that either.

From my cold dead hands, shall not be infringed

>nobody wants to do that, everyone agrees you can defend yourself.

But you can't, that's the isse.
All this legislation serves no purpose other to disarm and weaken the population and to strip away their only chance at protection.

First they take away the gun rights in the name of security like they did here, then they make a law so you go to jail if you kill someone with a gun while defending yourself.

Banning crazies is already done, what needs to happen is tighter scrutiny on those people.

Ban niggers, crazies and muzzies and other such peoples from buying guns legally, they'll still obtain them illegally if they want to, so in the end it's pointless and it only serves to impede the law abiding citizens.

I agree that licensing, background checks, and proper training would be great. But that will not stop the thousands of gun related street crimes every year. Our gun problem is less important than our nigger problem. Sure, mass shootings are awful, but it only makes up an extremely small fraction of gun related crime in the states. The truth is, it would take an all out war to get rid of the guns circulating on the streets of the US. Look at any social media account of a local thug, it is guaranteed they have a picture of themselves with a gun. Anybody can get one off the streets for a couple hundred bucks, no matter how strict the gun laws are.

I don't know why I'm dignifying you with a response because this is all so tired and the truth of the matter is that there is no problem with guns. At all. At all. Everyone wants to fix the issue. We already have background checks. If you're incapable of conducting yourself in society, you should be in jail. Once you've paid your debt, your rights should be fully restored. Prisons are just colleges and a means for networking criminals anyway and any felon is readily able to acquire guns.

And what constitutes mentally ill? People go through rough patches in their lives. They crack up. Should they be discouraged from seeking the help they need because they know they'll be reduced to the state of a serf afterwards with no right to defend himself?

And which party should have carte blanche on the definitions of "mentally ill"?

>angry people shouldn't own guns
Also there are already laws in the US barring people who have been involuntarily institutionalized from owning guns, and since we do in fact have background checks it actually works. Here's the deal, here in the US there's a spirit, we don't punish people for the actions of other and instead hold individuals responsible for their actions.
So whats the cut off then? What's the cut off for too old and disabled? What's the magic algorithm? I swear you people are like the middle school socialist kids who think they're so cool and sophisticated for commenting on things they have no knowledge or understanding of.

The right to travel does not mean the right to travel using any means of transportation. Also
>the government wouldn't allow something unconstitutional
Fucking wew lad. Have you met our president Mr Soetero? Have you heard of the 4th ammendment. Lordy, pal. You're a hoot.

No, we can't. The issue is polarized by default because one side wants less restrictions than we have, and the other side wants to ban almost everything. Only a very small minority would be happy with "some" legislation.

Also, legislation that puts all firearms behind a license system would violate the second amendment, which is sort of a big deal. It's be akin to licenses to speak freely; it sounds stupid, but the only thing stopping the US from implementing "free speech control" is the Constitution.

On a more personal opinion, I believe we're well past the point where gun control would be effective in the US. We have a huge gun culture, and a staggering amount of guns in circulation. Almost none of them are registered, and the only thing a serial could get you is manufacture date and possibly the first retail location. All of our gangbangers are used to them, and I don't think a ban would effect anything. Even if handguns were banned and they were somehow drained from circulation, people with manufacturing skill would just start pumping them out to the black market (making a fortune in the process). With the falling prices of 3D printers and home CNC machines, quality home-made guns are getting easier than ever to make.

it didn't work and funded the mafia

good thing the current war on drugs is working and isn't just funding the mafia and re-educating a horde of kids in jail for maximum divide between ethnic groups

Banning guns because of these things is like banning cars because there's some accidents.

You don't legislate that cars must be outlawed, you put laws in place that will hopefully lower the chance that an accident happens, thus we disallow people that are incapable of driving safely, we make it illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, we make it illegal to drive faster than the intended speed.

We mustn't ban guns, we must ban and deport gangbangers, niggers and white trash alike.

Guns are not bad, people are, and before we ban guns we should start a very selctive program to put in those unfit to have guns in gulags and or deport them to Africa where they can fight their dream like king of the hill survival game with other criminals.

I don't want """""""""""safety""""""""""" I want guns.

You have a little bit of logic in your post, but you lost me at "unfit to have guns" and "gulags".

Yeah, there are idiots and criminals and maniacs in the world but shit happens, that's life.

Driving in this country is almost universally construed as a privilege and not a right.

Get rid of background checks. Anyone not in jail or locked up in a padded room should have access to them. They already do for the most part. Restore one's sense of personal responsibility to defend themselves.

Address the "cultural" problem, and you've addressed your "issue". People used to take their guns to school all the time, they used to buy them out of mail order catalogues and shooting them was just Americana and no big deal. Nobody died.

I'd rather have gulags and get rid of the people who can't handle personal responsibility than continue to turn this entire country into a gulag and continue to fill it with people who can't handle responsibility

That's true. Considering I'm constantly expected to make concessions in my life for a rather small minority of toddlers, I can empathize.

It all depends on who defines the criteria for being admitted to the gulag. It's a Stalinist agency. So, neo-Stalinists then?

No, fuck you.
My uncle has schizophrenia, he tried to kill someone with a gun he purchased. He should have never been able to do that purchase.

The fact of life is that there are two types of people when it comes to guns, the ones fit to have them and the ones not fit to have them.

It may sound mean or bad to you, maybe you fear that your guns will be taken away if you are deemed not fit to have guns, maybe even I would be. But we must face the fact that not everyone is responsible, sane or mentally capacitated to have guns.

There is nothing wrong with restricting the purchases of guns to those people.

Niggers and gun grabbers go to gulag.

Fuck me? Fuck you. He could have tried to kill someone with any number of things. If he has such a serious case of schizophrenia where he's prone to homicidal outbursts, perhaps he should be locked up some where or placed in a shared living facility under close supervision.

>The fact of life is that there are two types of people when it comes to guns, the ones fit to have them and the ones not fit to have them.

This is not a fact of life, it's a fact of your own 'righteous' indignation and maybe some kind of revision of reality you've made in your limited mind.

>America bans guns
>Criminals set up secret places where people can go to get shot

He's locked up now, for the sake of everyone else.

You sound to me like you're some kind of person that is afraid would be deemed unfit to have guns so it doesn't tickle your fancy that I want to ban certain people from legally purchasing weapons.

>It may sound mean or bad to you, maybe you fear that your guns will be taken away if you are deemed not fit to have guns, maybe even I would be. But we must face the fact that not everyone is responsible, sane or mentally capacitated to have guns.

I am not responsible for, nor am I particularly interested in everybody. No one will ever convince me that I must relinquish a basic human right for the betterment of my country, or for myself. They're never going to make me believe I'm "more civilized" for it because it simply isn't true.

Countries that are disarmed suffer from increases in violent crime, and massive increases in gun crime. UK's gun crime doubled after the ban, yet there is this small population of simps who have deluded themselves into believing they don't need or are too good to have what they aren't allowed to have in the first place.

It's one of Aesop's Fables. The Fox and the Grapes.

There are people who would deem me unfit to have guns, simply because I have guns. The vague language like "certain people" is suspicious to me based on absurdities like that. Who are these people? Federally, you must be adjudicated insane by a court, have pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in order to be prohibited from gun purchase, ownership, or even being in the proximity of a gun.

Now how many people are railroaded out of their rights by judges and private institutions, the mishandling of paperwork? How many more by incompetent hadji doctors on HB1 visas who just don't like the patient's politics?

I would guess a lot more than saved by overreaching legislation that will never, ever be enough for the leftists.

>implying they're even remotely the same thing

Remembee when alcohol was an addictive substance and and unlike guns people go crazy without it?

But drugs have been banned for several decades and no one is doing drugs now. Prohibition simply didn't go far enough.

There is an AR-15 pistol. The AR-15 is just like any other rifle personally if I was defending my home a shotgun would trump any rifle.

I can't understand why Europeans fucking care about gun control in US. I for one never felt the need of owning a gun but ofc I live in a cuck country. What the fuck do care about some guy in Texas driving a goddamn tank or shooting birds with an assault weapon? We have different backgrounds and if the majority of Americans decides they need their guns and see the mass shootings as an acceptable collateral to this, let them have it. the fuck do i care.

They care because they want citizens of the US to be as cucked as they have become. Like I said, it's Fox and the Grapes. They pretend they are better and more civilized for not having what they aren't allowed in the first place, and they want the US to follow suit and sink to their level as simps.

you are actually making the same mistake these guys do. we live in different societies and this no guns thing works for us but maybe it doesn't work for you guys. just understand the difference and move along.