Hey buddy, i'm some dumb fuck who knows fuck all about guns compared to you fags

Hey buddy, i'm some dumb fuck who knows fuck all about guns compared to you fags.
Soooooooo...
The Orlando shooter had an MXC Carbine and i don't believe it was even modded for full auto, he hit a lot of people. People forget he also used bombs though.
Anyway, what do you think could even be done?
The only thing I can figure is take those types of rifles out of circulation and shooters are more or less stuck with pistols, shotguns and older rifles.

I mean, the MXC was clearly designed for military shit. Do citizens really need access to this?
Do citizens really think if there's a revolution that:
A. The soldiers would listen
And B. That they could take down the military with their dinky arms?

Im not trying to stir shit up, I just want to hear what you guys think. I like getting both sides of everything and the news never shines a good light on pro gun people, even when they do, they never bring up good arguments.

Other urls found in this thread:

crimeresearch.org/2015/07/new-study-over-12-8-concealed-handgun-permits-last-year-saw-by-far-the-largest-increase-ever-in-the-number-of-permits/
scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=14696530636352836447&q=United States v. Miller, 26 F. Supp. 1002 (W.D. Ark. 1939)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5
alternatewars.com/Politics/Firearms/NFA_Hearings_HR-9066_Complete.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Anyway, what do you think could even be done?
those fags should have had there own gun to protect themselves. also ban muslims

Let people CC in bars, problem solved

>Anyway, what do you think could even be done?
95%+ of mass shootings happen within gun-free zones and rifles are used for less than 5% of homicides. Ban gun-free zones, repeal the NFA, Gun Control Act, and Hughes Amendment, and let the citizenry take care of itself.

My 3 gun times shall not be infringed

Not all Muslims are bad. Maybe we should kill all Americans

no, the US is a christian nation. kill all muslims

Although I agree with you, you're sounding pretty Islamic there friend...

They should have been armed with carbines too. If you know fuck all about guns, why do you even comment on it?

>Not all Muslims are bad.
At least half of them are. Look at polls of Muslim populations for their opinions on allegedly extremist behaviors and viewpoints. "Moderate" Muslims are just hiding their power levels until there are enough of them to advocate for Sharia law openly.

t. muslim

Checked

>more or less stuck with pistols, shotguns and older rifles

Older rifles like this?

it shall be done, dem digits demand it

I'm asking you, it doesn't seem like having a gun prevents shootings though. Like Ft Hood, or the police station by my house.

If it's very difficult or impossible to mod for full auto, yeah.

>MXC
DONT GET ELIMINATED!

tell me if we banned guns, who would be left with them? the government and criminals. if someone breaks into my house with a gun and rapes my wife cause i cant defend my family, how will you feel?

What do you consider as difficult?

Also, full auto is shit for civilians, unless you're at Knob Creek.

Listen buddy, last time I checked, we had laws against murdering people. How well does that work out? The club was a gun free zone, how did that work out? You'll never get rid of all guns because they can be made easily.

How can you even hold these two ideas in one head?
> it wasn't even modded for full auto
>the MXC was clearly designed for military There's a limit to stupidity.

All the posts here sure do give gun owners a good image.
As to your a and b, we are banking on the soldiers not listening, and the guns are for the soldiers who do obey their orders, bombs are for their equipment.
As for what could be done, unfortunately not a lot. There are too many "modern sporting rifles" in circulation to ever confiscate them. That and they are used in less than 5% of firearm related homicides so it wouldn't fix anything.
Terrorism will happen in this nation regardless of what laws we have in place. Most of the time it is done with explosives, which need I remind you are heavily regulated, but like I said earlier, incredibly easy to make.

...

>take those types of rifles out of circulation

Hahahaha. Low end estimate, there are 20 million in circulation. And even if it's only 1%, or .1%, some of those people will shoot back if you try to confiscate their stuff.

>A. The soldiers would listen
The citizens are the soldiers. The soldiers get more conservative, more rural, more white/asian/hispanic, and more southern the closer they get to the cutting edge. They would not listen...to any confiscation order. They'd be the ones leading the revolution.

>B. That they could take down the military with their dinky arms?
Amateurs forget about logistics. The USA's #1 advantage since...ww1 at least has been having a logistical base untouched by war because it's safe, far away. Bring the war right into the heart of that and guess what?

Anyway, self-loading rifles are basic technology that dates back to the 1940s and can be built by any highschooler with a machine shop. They're also defined as a basic tool for a basic human right by SCOTUS.

So you're practically, tactically, and legally dumb as fuck.

Only military police and security have guns on base. Fort hood is for all intensive porpoises a gun free zone.

About 3% of the population has a carry license; about 3% of mass shootings are stopped by privately carried weapons.

In contrast, unarmed people stop mass shootings less than 20% of the time.

100% vs 20%, it's not hard to see the difference; unless I suppose you have a hateboner for people defending themselves effectively.

I didn't say ban all guns.
You can defend your house with a pistol, or a shotgun. Why go on a tangent like that?

Can't buy the pieces legally, or having to heavily mod it to handle full auto

I'm not saying get rid of all guns.

The people who made it
>The Sig MCX, described by its manufacturer as a “groundbreaking tactical rifle” and “the first true mission-adaptable weapon system,” was introduced to the civilian market in 2015. Reviewing the gun for the website the Truth About Guns, Nick Leghorn led by noting that Sig Sauer “developed the MCX rifle for America’s special forces. Their goal: a firearm that’s as quiet as an MP5, as deadly as an AK-47, and more modular than anything ever designed.”

>You can defend your house with a pistol, or a shotgun. Why go on a tangent like that?
more people are killed with handguns tho, why are you not banning those?

Soldiers are banned from carrying weapons on post unless they're at a firing range.

I was thinking this desu. Like, I get why they want gun control, it would save SOME lives, but it's a knee jerk reaction imo

What in the fuck

Ft Hood was a gun free zone. Most military bases are - private guns have to be locked in base armories. Most mass shootings occur in gun free zones for obvious reasons, the Colorado theatre shooter explicitly picked it for that reason.

Can I get some sources to compare?

realize something user

mass shootings are a meme. you think they're a real issue because the media and obama spam them in your face constantly. mass shootings make up a tiny amount of firearm murders per year, let alone murder by any method. legislating off of mass shootings is retarded.

it's literally blaming all gun owners for the completely unimpactful actions of a few, which is despicable discrimination

there's more depth to the statistics of it but that requires effort on my part

oh, additionally, military style rifles being evil are a fucking meme. see the rifle pictured here? it is every bit as deadly as an ebil assault rifle weapon of war. the assault weapons ban got sunsetted for a reason.

This is good bait.

But as a military member, I A) wouldn't fire on US citizens, B) Most service members I know would also refuse and possibly defect, and C) the US people could thrash the government

That would be rayciss because it would have disparate impact on "urban crime."

Also modern-looking guns are scarier to the senile Hollywood-indoctrinated women that form the bulk of the antifuns voterbase.

Some people do want to ban those, but the main thing I'm talking about is what people think are "assault rifles"
I don't really have an opinion either way, I don't think most gun owners are psychos or anything.

Like I said in an earlier post I kind of agree with you, it's really reactive instead of proactive and a scapegoat really

>5.2% of the total adult population has a permit. Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun
permits.
crimeresearch.org/2015/07/new-study-over-12-8-concealed-handgun-permits-last-year-saw-by-far-the-largest-increase-ever-in-the-number-of-permits/

>The people who made it
Got it - despite living to a ripe old age of 10+ years, you're unable to distinguish advertising from real life.

>more people are killed with handguns tho, why are you not banning those?
SCOTUS says you can't. Chicago and DC got spanked like disobedient children by Justice Scalia in separate cases.

why do you want to ban semi auto rifles when they are rarely used in crime?

are you aware of how many niggers killed other niggers this weekend alone in chicago?

"A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013"

Recently released free online by the FBI.

Okay, then what do you want? If you agree that banning military style weapons and regulating off of mass shootings is stupid, what's your point?

>A) wouldn't fire on US citizens, B) Most service members I know would also refuse and possibly defect,
This was my point. Like the soldiers have families and morals, they wouldn't just turn on the people like that, and IF you did and your soldier friends did, the people probably wouldn't be able to beat you.
Of the gun owners in the US, taking out police and military, the rest are more or less just hobbyists with no combat experience.

>SCOTUS says you can't.
i know that, im ripping apart his thoughts. kys

This, or how many crackheads killed other crackheads this weekend in detroit?

> what people think are "assault rifles"

Those are a unicorn. They don't exist, they're an imaginary composite of several non-overlapping entities. So expect people to laugh at you the way atheists laugh at shamans conjuring miracles.

Liberals don't care about that because niggers will vote Democratic until the sun goes cold given enough repetitions of "Republicans hate minorities" in the media. Mass shootings are scarier to them because they happen to middle class white people.

I don't have a point I'm just asking, I don't know your side, the media never gives you guys a chance to actually talk.

I know, that's why I said what people THINK are assault rifles. People against guns don't usually know much about them in my experience, and I can tell because i don't know a hell of a lot about guns

>i don't know a hell of a lot about guns
then your opinion is invalid. you want to ban something you dont know shit about. go after swimming pools or cars, they kill more people than guns.

Try reading Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago - two recent supreme court cases on the second amendment.

I also suggest reading a common mythbusting collection like the gunfacts.info pdf.

Just be aware that even if you're sincere (chances are low) leftists coming and pretending to debate, in bad faith, are so common that many gun owners are really tired of extending honest educational opportunities only to find out it was a waste of time all along.

Okay user, here's my opinion. The media is full of shit and gun control is a non-issue pushed by soccer moms and evil Democrats like Dianne Feinstein who want to ban everything they possibly can because they don't like guns. More gun control is retarded, and the restrictions that we already have in place are beyond reasonable.

The reason they talk about gun control is the same reason they talk about stupid bullshit like transgendered people in restrooms. They want you to ignore actual issues.

Fun fact, car accidents kill so many people that the supply of organs from victims has pushed back the need for artificial replacement organs by thirty or forty years. That's what that "organ donor" checkbox on your driver's license means.

What part of I don't want to ban guns don't you get?

i know. im not a donor, no doctor is rippin me aprt

>The only thing I can figure is take those types of rifles out of circulation

>what can be done

Ignorant leftists can fuck off and stop attacking our human rights. That's what can be done, but it won't be, so we'll have to keep fighting this grind forever.

Yup, ft hood was a fish in a barrel type situation. He was an efficient shooter for the most part and the response time of base security was atrocious.

/k/ does not get trips,quads,quints magic. We get memes, lols, and traps.

nothing. You can unload an 8 shot shotgun as fast as you can pump the handle and pull the trigger, and a semi auto gun as fast as you can pull the trigger. Yet even with restrictions on magazine sizes and reloads, he could still just drop the empty gun, pull out another, and keep shooting. This is true for every kind of gun.
The answer is not restrictions, the answer is to have people on guard with their own personal firearms, Club managers and bouncers at the very least, so that the second some nut starts shooting people someone else can pop mow him down.
There is no protection against bombs except every building employing bomb-sniffing dogs to walk around with their personal security, on 24-hour a day sweeps, every day. And treasuring every moment of your life, knowing some drunk driver or nutjob could end it at any time.
Welcome to reality.

>and traps.
kys ya vocal minority

We could also repeal the 19th Amendment, which would solve the problem nearly overnight. So many anti-gunners are just women upset that they might actually have to deal with responsibility for their own safety.

You know what, I can't even blame anyone for being hostile, i'm sure I'd be sick of it too

Pic related
Oh shit

/k/ has always been a bit on the gay side user, if not in an entirely serious way

You're right, it's only 70% of them. Segregation would work much better, but surprise surprise, wolves would rather live among sheep than other wolves.

This is what I'm saying, like what the fuck else can you even do? It's gonna happen, gun control is a meme answer.

>pistol, or a shotgun.
Anyone can go on a killing spree with some pistols and a shotgun

its a few fags getting out of hand now. jokes every once in a while were funny but now there are a few constantly spamming fag shit

>Can't buy the pieces legally, or having to heavily mod it to handle full auto

So in other words, the AR15 is alright. Coincidentally, so is the SIG MCX that you want banned. There's nothing magical about a carrying handle that makes the early AR15s okay and later flat-tops or the MCX not.

>I didn't say ban all guns
>Look you still have all these

Fuck off you faggot. That's how the guns are slowly taken. Machine guns heavily restricted in 1986, now you're coming for the fucking semi auto rifles. This is exactly how confiscation happens one step at a time.

First of all, most of the military and police have no combat experience. As for training, your average gun owner has plenty. It's really not that hard, some things never change. Get behind something, fire.

Also, there'd be some military guys and police people training the populace. So, even if half choose to enforce the state, there'll be so much opposition. And you can't really shit bombs and artillery into America's cities and towns.

So yes, the guns do form a last line of defense.

As for "assault weapons" less than 500 people a year on average, 600 in a busy year are murdered with rifles and shotguns in America. More people are killed with hammers.

The media is doing what the media does best. If the media owns your opinion, what don't they own?

Cho did the Virginia Tech shooting with 9mm handguns.

>Hypothetically
I'm asking because no one ever actually gives you guys a chance to talk and I want to understand your side.

You would think they'd be safer

>he could still just drop the empty gun, pull out another, and keep shooting
They used to that in the cartel drug wars in Miami actually

Postulates a theory and asks for input. Inidated with illiterate knee jerk retarded responses.
Let's all run off someone who is interested in our side and open to conversation. This won't negatively affect us in any way, no sir.

if you say so user. doesn't seem to matter one way or another to me.

I forget if it's called a Boston Reload or a New York Reload
I just called it pulling a Tediore

>I want to understand your side.
our side is that its our right to own firearms. there is no getting around this, any attempt to band/restrict is an infringement on our right.

read above then kys.

9mm and .22lr

Pic related- stats from 2014

New York Reload

You are aware that shall not be infringed isn't an argument that holds any water in this great nation right? Op is being civil and you are throwing meme canned responses at him.

K. You got me to post.

Heres the deal.

The deliberations of the 1934 NFA act specifically addressed long rifles and pistols, and they chose not to go after them as they did not feel they had the constitutional power to do so.

In 1938/39 in the Miller vs. US ruling, the anti guns thought they won because the black guy didnt get to keep a sawed off shotgun. But what they don't seem to get is that ruling specifically slid that way because they compared the shotguns intended use to whether it would be effective to a militia.

So while the anti gunners are running around cheering "we can regulate, we can regulate!" They specifically are not intended to be able to regulate any weapon which may be of use to a milita out of the hands of the citizens of the US.

Sources:
scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=14696530636352836447&q=United States v. Miller, 26 F. Supp. 1002 (W.D. Ark. 1939)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5


alternatewars.com/Politics/Firearms/NFA_Hearings_HR-9066_Complete.htm

how does it hold no water?

I can't even blame them for getting emotional and being skeptical

You should want people on your side so that they'll quit bitching, no?

Didn't even know there was a name for that, and as expected it sounds cool af.

Yeah, people keep trying to interpret the amendments to demonize you guys.
Are there any notable constitutional lawyers or anything advocating for those rights?

...

That's interesting af

Why to people like sawnoffs anyway? Doesn't a tightly packed blast of balls to way more damage? Isn't that how you blow off limbs and blast holes in people?
Did everyone just have shitty aim back then?

The point is that "shall not be infringed" is black and white. There's no interpretation needed. The people should always be able to meet the government force for force if need be. We should be able to own ICBMs and H bombs.

The idea was that you would conceal it under your coat. Then just blast the shit outta someone point blank and have a lower chance of them surviving. No follow up shots.

And even if we can't, the government is always limited by money and it's popularity with the people, so if enough of us create a resistance putting it down will just become too expensive.

Ah, that makes more sense. I feel less stupid now.

Op, perhaps the biggest problem is that in the past, when firearms weren't as tightly regulated, we didn't see these mass spree killings. If restricting firearms prevented mass killings, and large scale ownership of military arms encourages it, then why were there so few at the time when you could easily purchase some pretty heavy weaponry?

Incidentally, that is why there is an arbitrary restriction on longarms length today - it devolves from the length of 1930s era coat fashions during the mafia panic.

You just remnded me of the most hilarious thing ever. That scene in bowling for combine where the kid pulls out like 20 guns.
I'd like to see him walk around like that desu and see if no one can tell the clanking fucker is carrying a gun.
That kind of shit makes me want to talk to you guys, the anti gun people do some ridiculous shit

That's a good question, I wonder why that is. Some cultural differences? More people can afford guns?
Im saving this question too

Because innumerable "infringements" are already in place and set a precedent. Until there are no more arms restrictions left on the books, snbi is nothing more than a cry for people who can't rationaly argue for the right to bear arms. Snbi espousers are the people that pro-gun control advocates love to get on the news and into the media, because majorily, they make us pro-gunners look like retards.

That's less than 600, like I said. Rifles and shotguns kill very few.

Concealable pocket guns are the real killers, but if you banned those, there's enough in illegal existence that criminals would carry and we wouldn't. Don't want that.

>affordability

In the 1960s, the average income per year was $5,315.00 in 1960, rising to $8,540.00 in 1969 (in the dollars of the day). I don't think we can claim cost as an issue, especially as there was a lot of inexpensive milsurp from WW2 on the market.

Id like to see him go into a court house.

>sir, do you have any metallic objects on your person?

>Uhm.

I thought rifles were open carry in Maryland

To "rationally argue" is not rational. It cedes the high ground of unequivocal legal precedence - the simple fact that personally owned modern guns for self defence are a human right, as defined by the constitution and supreme court of the USA - for petty squabbling over ephemeral cultural technicalities.