Do americans even think?
all this talk about banning "assault guns" (what's that even?) when all you need is a fucking .22 bullet to the head to get your life fucked, and yet it is ok for most of you to allow your most ignorant, bullied and psychopathic citizens to buy them at a walmart store?
Get your laws fixed America
falklands
americans will literally kill people to keep their guns
you have no idea how much they love them
Assault Guns are typically very hard to find ammo for.
Just add an amendment to the constitution that helps the system a bit. Personally, I disagree with the supreme court and think you are doing it wrong anyway. "A well regulated militia..." A person should have to prive they are "well regulated" before owning guns. Just like driving or hunting, you need to at least show basic competency and public trust.
I guess it's just a little bit harder to mass murder with a non-automatic weapon.
So they assume that "assault guns" = "weapons that fire rapidly" = mass murders
lmao. now what qualifies a ``well regulated'' person? Some slack-jawed soccer mom?
Please, if it were up to some people in this world, you would be posting here from your bubble wrapped chair.
Restriction does not solve problems of freedom. The world is full of countless power hungry psychopaths, and you would do well to not ever encourage them.
as a previous murican user ironically noted, I meant assault rifle, which is a military concept and kinda broad to describe weapons today
> "weapons that fire rapidly"
There are low caliber pistols that fire rapidly too, it is not about the action, it is about the limitations to get them, and it is sadly very easy to get a gun over there, hence the sad reality of mass shotings
A well regulated person is someone that has proven the ability to complete a firearms safety course and who can pass a comprehensive criminal background and mental health exam.
Yes, sometimes regulation does help freedom to flourish. Don't confuse a free society with anarchy. An gram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure.
Why do Americans *need* to own a tactical strategic assault weapon?
>second thread about us in a few minutes by the argeniggers
>obsessed
The law is ok, you have to fix americans
The unironically believe that their domestic terrorism manifesto, known as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, was divinely inspired, that its architects were geniuses, its defenders gods, and despite having a mechanism to make changes, which they have used in the past for reasons as arbitrary as liquor, that on this one issue it can never be altered.
They also believe that a gun's primary function is not hunting, collecting, investing, or target and skeet shooting, but rather defence against a tyrannical state. Paradoxically, gun owners also tend to be in favour of a bloated runaway state military budget.
The gun is not the problem. Bullying is. Rather than banning the gun they should start an anti-bullying campaign. Rise the awareness about bullying and virgin shaming. Set up a counselling and a hotline to report the bully.
>what's that even
An "assault rifle" is any rifle chambered in either 7.62 or 5.56 NATO and capable of firing in semi-auto ( one bullet fired per trigger pull) as well as fully automatic (endless firing per trigger pull) and rapid fire (multiple rounds per trigger pull). And "assault weapon" is a political term used to refer to any weapon that politicians decide is too scary for the average person to have such as semi-auto rifles (although never pistols for some reason), lever action rifles, pump action shotguns, certain revolvers, knives, anything that has "the shoulder thing that goes up", body armor,anything with a picatinny rail, anything that is black, mace,tazers,cellphones....
>.22 ammunition
>Walmart
LOL good luck with that.
Well how else are we going to scare the ever loving fuck out of lesser nations?
The .22LR bullet shortage is still the most insane thing I have ever experienced in my lifetime. I can't think of any parallels. At least .22WMR is still very slightly more available.
I never said that logic was correct, but that's probably what they're going for. They are assuming that all assault rifles are automatic rifles (or semi-automatic) of a higher caliber.
An AK-47 has more fire power than an MP9 for example, both are equally deadly, but because the AK pack more power, it's more reliable and deadly, therefore it needs to be banned.
I'm not saying this is the correct thing to do and I'm not defending it, I'm just pointing out that this is their possible line of thought.
Argensimian
It's all moronic fudds stockpiling it every single time they see something happen on the news because they think guns are going to get banned or something.
After all everyone knows when the government turns oppressive .22lr is going to be the most effective round for shooting body armored national guard troops and MRAP's right?
Shut the fuck up you fucking low IQ commie trash.
But aren't they turned on your fellow countrymen? What legitimate reason is there to own a murder tool?
.22 is a very affordable and effective survial round for preppers and the like. I thought Fudds were people like me that had no interest in guns for defence or late 18th century American philosophical ideals about tyranny, but rather just like guns for hunting and target shooting?
Define murder tool. The AR platform is arguably the best widely available weapon system for coyote and wild pig hunting. Western hunts on the praries, deserts, tundra, and mountains above the treeline frequently require what could be considered "sniper rifles."
>moronic fudds stockpiling
How much bullets do people usually keep in stock or use for range shooting?
Hard to imagine a nation with plentiful ammo manufacturers and manufactures ammo press having shortage.
If you saw a man tear his own arm off and he started chasing after you waving it like a weapon, would you not be terrified of that man?
I can't speak for others but I usually keep about 1000 rounds for all my guns on hand at a time so I don't have to pay range prices.
I generally use about 100 rounds per gun every range day.
>Hard to imagine a nation with plentiful ammo manufacturers and manufactures ammo press having shortage.
It's a bit of an artificial shortage, I think it started out as the ammo manufactures not being able to keep up with demand a few years ago but now they are just slowing production to increase demand and possibly increase prices.
That said I buy most of my ammo online (what I don't reload myself that is) and it is always cheaper to buy online in bulk.
American seriously don't have brains, i swear to god they don't. How do i get out of this country?
Without assault rifles you can't have true freedom
why are you throwing tacticool words together? it only takes away from your point.
Its not a case of needs, if right of ownership of things were based on needs alone we would be able to own very few things. Its far more of a concept of "why not". there is no irrefutable evidence that suggests that banning assault weapons would have any effect on crime rates. There is virtually no correlation (actually a slightly negative correlation if you want to split hairs) between gun ownership and crime so it quite literally is not a case of keeping people safe and is instead just a debate because banning scary things would bring people peace of mind. You dont need to look any further than our already batshit retarded gun control laws we already have to see that the people writing legislation have zero idea what they are doing with some particularly stupid rulings such as changing the classification of a firearm based on the material that the stock is made out of. The kind of people lobbying for shit like this are the same people who campaign against GMOs and vaccines using scientifically dubious data that does nothing but confirm their own world view.
Do you know what would make me feel a whole lot safer? Raising the legal driving age. There are some places in the country where you can legally drive a car unsupervised at 14. That terrifies me a lot more than people being allowed to buy a gun with a polymer stock instead of a wooden one if they prefer.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that your *desire* (rather than *need*) to own a lethal assault weapon equipped with armour-piercing rounds overrides the right of your compatriots to feel safe in public spaces?
It's not a need or a desire, it's a right.
>lethal assault weapon equipped with armour-piercing rounds
You're walking on thin ice here, pal
This post kills the american
again, you are just throwing scary buzzwords together and its detracting from any point you may have. If the debate boils down to feelings instead of looking at facts then you dont have much of a case.
Also, please note that I dont even own a gun other than a small .22 rifle that has just been sitting in my garage for years now. I am by no means a gun nut. I just see the strategies that the anti-gun lobbyists use and notice how similar they are to conspiracy theorists that I cant help but refuse to take them seriously. If they were really concerned with being safe in a public place they would crack down on impaired driving before going after guns.
The problem is that the mental health exam is precisely what I mean by "slack jawed soccer mom"
The current state of firearms means that if you are judged by a mental health professional to be unfit to own a gun, then you can't buy one.
But suppose this psychiatrist has a thing about guns, they will obviously take them away any chance they get.
>"Hey doc I'm having a rough patch with my job/wife and just need someone that will listen"
>"Pop these SSRIs I'm trying to sell everyone and call me in the morning. Oh yeah, I guess you're a suicide risk, so no guns for the rest of your life :^)"
It should absolutely not be up to one person, especially one in a decidedly soft science, to take away a person's right to bear arms.
I never advocated for armour piercing rounds, I said that the AR platform had practical applications outside of killing people.
>feeling safe in public spaces
>as a brit
Americans do that now though with a right as vital as freedom itself. If a court appointed psychiatrist deems someone requires commitment to a mental institution they get locked up. I think they are looking for people that have a history of criminal insanity, not basic clinical depression, which might actually benefit from hunting and gun sports. It isn't a private psychologist's/psychiatrist's diagnosis, but rather a court finding for people that have a history of aggression and impulse control issues.
lol
It's a matter of before/after.
You shouldn't require people visit a shrink before a purchase or license. In fact, the very concept of a license means that there is not a right.
Court appointed psychiatrists commit people to mental institutions only after a crime is committed. They do not pre-emptively commit people to mental institutions.
People have been deemed ``unfit for gun ownership'' for less. Taking ADHD medication, smoking marijuana, misdiagnosed depression.
Frankly, it's in a person's best interest to avoid therapists altogether, and this applies to everyone, and not just people who want to own guns.
When an Am*rican asks a German how he could read German
Well artificial shortage does makes sense, I thought there are people who storm gun shops and buy thousands of ammo everytime Norks does missile tests.
>tfw no M1 carbine with grenade launcher.
Werid Californa has one of the highest gun crimes and strictest gun controls
>how he could read German
Don't you mean turkish?
I don't support that at all, what I was talking about were people that had been diagnosed by a court psychiatrist. For example someone might have a habit of beating the shit out of his wife's car with a hammer, screaming out obscenities, while drunk every Sunday. It's not a felony, but he clearly has aggression problems and probably shouldn't have a gun.
every time a democrat gets elected people think that they will make guns and/or ammo illegal
Trumps election cost smith and wesson and remington billions in market cap
>I thought there are people who storm gun shops and buy thousands of ammo everytime Norks does some missile tests
There are but even then the manufacturers make enough to satisfy demand, which is why I assume the scarcity is artificial.
Maine has the lowest violent crime rate and is one of very few states that has permitless concealed carry. Of course they are the last true Americans and are in every way superior.
Nah it was a medieval description of some ethnicities in German, and one was "Tirk oder Grieche" -> Turk or Greek
I have heard this before, that Obama was the greatest gun salesman ever born.
See its people not guns
You should clarify that next time you make that point. Devil's in the details.
Smart man once said "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
...
>be european
>get shot
I didn't think clarification was necessary, I'm a gun supporting Canadian, not a retard.
>says the flag that the 2nd amendment was designed against
Not quite
steady on clever clogs
arent assault rifles actually pretty hard to get
yes
>gun supporting canadian
>canadian
>not a retard
haha good one
>low caliber
Caliber refers to the diameter.
Do you say a "low diameter pipe", or "high diameter pipe"?
No...you say a "small diameter pipe" or "large diameter pipe"
Why can't anti-gun faggots into basic English?
And don't pull the ESL card, even native speakers do it...
Yeah, I know Ireland wasn't incorporated until the turn of the century. Not like the Union Jack was nearly the same with just the addition of the Irish X or Sup Forums let's us post under older flags of our nations.
where I live not at all they are just expensive as all fuck if you want an automatic one because only guns manufactured/imported before 1986 are legal and require an expensive tax stamp. You would be surprised at just how many things you can buy as long as you fill out the proper paperwork and pay the appropriate taxes. Shit such as land mines, miniguns, fighter jets, RPGs, and Tanks are perfectly legal in most states as long as the ATF gets their due they are just absurdly expensive so are relegated to expensive playthings for people like Dan Bilzerian
well regulated means well armed, lots of ammo. "regulated" meant an entirely different thing when they made the bill of rights.
>fighter jets
You cannot fly an aircraft with mounted weapons inside US airspace unless you are the military. The FAA regulates aviation, not the ATF. There is no tax stamp which allows you this privilege
Not really hard, just annoying
..continued: This is not to say you cannot fly a demile-d aircraft. There are F-5s, F-86s, Mig-15s and all sorts of demil-ed aircraft that you can fly US airspace
I don't believe you
>lethal
>assault
>armour-piercing rounds
is this the brady campaign?
In my state you can walk in a store with a valid ID and walk out with one of these after an instant background check and signing some papers, no carry permit needed. Some places have a waiting period, others require a permit which can act as a de facto ban because they are issued by the local police department and you have to give a reason for owning one and they can deny you for just about anything. If you want something with a full automatic assembly you have to buy it through a certified broker and there are some retarded laws that make it so you are not technically the owner but instead "lease" it through a vendor although its yours in every sense other than the fact that you cant take it out of the state. They are also expensive as fuck, like $20k+ expensive with some models even fetching $40k price tags along with a $200 tax stamp
I never said you could fly it but you can theoretically own one. Pretty sure its the same with explosive weapons, you can own landmines and shit as long as you want to pay for the stamp for every one but I dont think its legal to set them up in your yard for self defense.
I don't believe Brian either
Ok, even it's devoid of all its weapons, can you legally own, let's say, a supersonic military aircraft and fly it around the country above the speed of sound?
americaloveshorsepower.com
>Ok, even it's devoid of all its weapons, can you legally own, let's say, a supersonic military aircraft
of course
>fly it around the country above the speed of sound?
no, not even military jets on training exercises can break the sound barrier in areas with civilians, the state has had to pay in the past where jets were going too fast and the resulting sonic booms broke windows and shit in cities. Im almost certain its happened in brazil too.
prideaircraft.com
This is like craigslist for de-armed jets, go wild
>this meme again
That's pretty rad actually, but I do understand the not breaking the sound barrier thing.
It's not about what you need, it's about not living in a country where a tyrannical government tells you can't have things just because big brother doesn't think you "need" them. If I decide that I want to have an armory full of big guns with a massive stockpile of ammo, I don't need to justify myself to you or anyone else, because that's my god-given right as a citizen of the greatest nation on Earth.
self-defense innit
Daily reminder that Cho killed 32 adults only with two handguns, in the middle of metropolitan city
I hope he made his people proud
>Bushmaster finally made a stock 18.5" ACR so now it's legal non-restricted in Canada.
Based, shame about that price tag though.
You can not argue with an American about guns. It boils down to the fact that they do not care, and literally would rather there be a weekly mass shooting than to have any further controls on gun ownership.
the thing is, mass shootings aren't even a thing here. people who think it's an actual issue have no idea how big this country is.
Finally someone understands, fuck.
>the thing is, mass shootings aren't even a thing here.
I've never ever known anyone who has known anyone who has known anyone who has seen a shooting, how is that an issue? Almost all of our "gun crime" statistics is from gangs and niggers
>Lets discount these American citizens from statistics involving Americans so it shapes the argument around my goal.
don't your police gun down criminals with submachine guns on motorcycles
Okay, those shootings aren't "mass" anyway but it's not an issue for normal people.
There is a very basic and straight forward legal definition to a mass shooting, you don't get to change it to suit your argument.
Yes yes, 4 or more people chosen at random or something. It doesn't happen here.
wut.
...
im new user but i read,
>>It doesn't happen here.
and i'm just wut? you guys have already had 12 this year and wiki is debating whether or not to even add them anymore because they are so frequent they no longer qualify as notable.
12 "mass shootings" in a country with well over 300 million people, that's one for every 3 million people. Do you understand how rare that is? It's not entirely random either, these are in concentrated areas.
