Jump to content

Rant: Gun Grabbing Liberal Cucks


Zaraphayx
 Share

Recommended Posts

"We have to protect the gays from the bigots quick take the guns!"

My protection from the bigots is my gun you half-wits.

Let me guess, I should trust the police to protect me even though according to progressives the police force is ineffectual, senselessly brutal, and full of racist heteronormative white males.

Debate me ITT -  Stakes: loser (that's you) posts their dick.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a licensed, gun carrying American...

We have a problem. Not just with guns. Guns themselves don't create an issue. The issue itself how readily available guns are to individuals who should not get guns.

I support a mandatory wait period, training course and licensure to purchase firearms.

Then once you've gone through the rigorous background check process, you should be able to purchase any firearm or accessory you wish. 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DevilBear said:

As a licensed, gun carrying American...

We have a problem. Not just with guns. Guns themselves don't create an issue. The issue itself how readily available guns are to individuals who should not get guns.

I support a mandatory wait period, training course and licensure to purchase firearms.

Then once you've gone through the rigorous background check process, you should be able to purchase any firearm or accessory you wish. 

In Canada we have no waiting period at all. 

Less shootings than the USA. 

The waiting period thing is a garbage idea. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

In Canada we have no waiting period at all. 

Less shootings than the USA. 

The waiting period thing is a garbage idea. 

You also have 1/10 the population, 1/100 the amount of firearms, a culture that doesn't romanticize guns, and... hell our countries are completely different. This is a bad comparison.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DevilBear said:

You also have 1/10 the population, 1/100 the amount of firearms, a culture that doesn't romanticize guns, and... hell our countries are completely different. This is a bad comparison.

That means nothing. The waiting period is a dumb idea. It does nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a one week wait period can stop even one murder, than I think it's more than worth it. The minor inconvenience should not affect anyone to such an extent it causes serious damage. And before anyone says, "Well you can kill someone with a knife/bat/hammer/falling anvil," that's not the point. Murders will happen, but people use guns to kill. If a slight wait in getting a weapon can prevent one, isn't that worth it? In the United States, I don't forsee any scenario where gun crime is ever completely eliminated. But any little bit helps.

You, as a Canadian, don't know our laws, or people. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, because it is, but it's less informed than some. America's gun issue is a cultural issue which, unfortunately, is unique to our culture.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DevilBear said:

If a one week wait period can stop even one murder, than I think it's more than worth it. The minor inconvenience should not affect anyone to such an extent it causes serious damage. And before anyone says, "Well you can kill someone with a knife/bat/hammer/falling anvil," that's not the point. Murders will happen, but people use guns to kill. If a slight wait in getting a weapon can prevent one, isn't that worth it? In the United States, I don't forsee any scenario where gun crime is ever completely eliminated. But any little bit helps.

You, as a Canadian, don't know our laws, or people. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, because it is, but it's less informed than some. America's gun issue is a cultural issue which, unfortunately, is unique to our culture.

How exactly? You can buy a gun illegally or use a legally acquired gun that you already own. It will stop nothing. Which is why we don't have waiting periods in this country. They are pointless. 

I know your laws and your people. The gun issue is not unique to your culture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boggles my mind how people all know how easy it is to get weed (or much harder shit) but think banning guns will somehow work.

 

I mean, it's not like banning alcohol in the '20s created a gigantic black market and an explosion of violent organized crime that reached biblical proportions... oh wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off very few people are arguing for the removal or ban of all guns.  The only guns that are generally being target for ban/removal are those guns that are and/or can be easily used to kill/injure large number of people.  Handguns for the use of personal defense would still be acceptable, but it is not reasonable to assume that a person needs a gun capable of killing 50 assailants within a few hours.  So the argument that you need to have access to highly lethal weaponry for personal defense doesn't really hold water.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DevilBear said:

As a licensed, gun carrying American...

We have a problem. Not just with guns. Guns themselves don't create an issue. The issue itself how readily available guns are to individuals who should not get guns.

I support a mandatory wait period, training course and licensure to purchase firearms.

Then once you've gone through the rigorous background check process, you should be able to purchase any firearm or accessory you wish. 

As an unlicensed, gun carrying American...

This only stops crimes of passion, not premeditated and planned acts of mass violence which all of the highly televised spree shootings are. That's why these guys all have manifestos and spell out their motives for us to piece back together after they're committed the act.

This is actually worse because I'd rather some angry nerd with a gun be as incompetent and inexperienced as possible when he sets his mind to ventilating a bunch of people.
 

1 hour ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

First off very few people are arguing for the removal or ban of all guns.  The only guns that are generally being target for ban/removal are those guns that are and/or can be easily used to kill/injure large number of people.  Handguns for the use of personal defense would still be acceptable, but it is not reasonable to assume that a person needs a gun capable of killing 50 assailants within a few hours.  So the argument that you need to have access to highly lethal weaponry for personal defense doesn't really hold water.

I always love it when you nerds who don't know shit about guns talk about how dangerous "certain guns" are. Every gun I own can be easily used to kill/injure a large number of people, that's the point of a gun, to be "highly lethal".

The Sig P250 I carry on a near daily basis holds 16 rounds and I have two extended magazines at home that hold 21. For comparison, most standard AR15 magazines hold 30. I can probably swap these magazines faster than you can whip your dick out so killing 50 people "within an hour" has a whole lot less to do with my equipment and a whole lot more to do with my surroundings. And yes, I absolutely do need all 21 of those bullets to defend myself. When I decide that the danger to my life is imminent enough that I'm willing to escalate to potentially lethal force I would carry a million bullets if it was logistically and physically possible.

P.S. You're 5 more times to get struck by lightning than shot by a rifle round. Handguns overwhelmingly dominate gun homicide because they're typically cheaper, easy to conceal, and less cumbersome than rifles. Rifles are used by military personnel in combat zones for a variety of reasons that are completely inapplicable either for self-defense or for lone-man spree-shooting. I did the math for this once when some dork on normiebook got all uppity about "u crayzee gun nuts and your ASSAULT RIFLES!" with data from the FBI crime statistics database and it was hilarious because he deleted his post 20 minutes later and his girlfriend gave me a blowjob.

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

As an unlicensed, gun carrying American...

This only stops crimes of passion, not premeditated and planned acts of mass violence which all of the highly televised spree shootings are. That's why these guys all have manifestos and spell out their motives for us to piece back together after they're committed the act.

This is actually worse because I'd rather some angry nerd with a gun be as incompetent and inexperienced as possible when he sets his mind to ventilating a bunch of people.
 

I always love it when you nerds who don't know shit about guns talk about how dangerous "certain guns" are. Every gun I own can be easily used to kill/injure a large number of people, that's the point of a gun, to be "highly lethal".

The Sig P250 I carry on a near daily basis holds 16 rounds and I have two extended magazines at home that hold 21. For comparison, most standard AR15 magazines hold 30. I can probably swap these magazines faster than you can whip your dick out so killing 50 people "within an hour" has a whole lot less to do with my equipment and a whole lot more to do with my surroundings. And yes, I absolutely do need all 21 of those bullets to defend myself. When I decide that the danger to my life is imminent enough that I'm willing to escalate to potentially lethal force I would carry a million bullets if it was logistically and physically possible.

P.S. You're 5 more times to get struck by lightning than shot by a rifle round. Handguns overwhelmingly dominate gun homicide because they're typically cheaper, easy to conceal, and less cumbersome than rifles. Rifles are used by military personnel in combat zones for a variety of reasons that are completely inapplicable either for self-defense or for lone-man spree-shooting. I did the math for this once when some dork on normiebook got all uppity about "u crayzee gun nuts and your ASSAULT RIFLES!" with data from the FBI crime statistics database and it was hilarious because he deleted his post 20 minutes later and his girlfriend gave me a blowjob.

 

kid police effortpost writing ticket.jpg

That's my job.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

The Sig P250 I carry on a near daily basis holds 16 rounds and I have two extended magazines at home that hold 21. For comparison, most standard AR15 magazines hold 30. I can probably swap these magazines faster than you can whip your dick out so killing 50 people "within an hour" has a whole lot less to do with my equipment and a whole lot more to do with my surroundings.

The fact that you have found a handgun with a similar level of lethality in no way refutes my original point which is that certain guns are too lethal and the process of acquiring one should in some way be limited, regulated, or outright banned.

51 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

And yes, I absolutely do need all 21 of those bullets to defend myself. When I decide that the danger to my life is imminent enough that I'm willing to escalate to potentially lethal force I would carry a million bullets if it was logistically and physically possible.

So I think here is the real crux of our disagreement and in order to go further in this discussion it would behoove you to further clarify this point.  Are you arguing from the position that any amount of lethal force against any number of potential assailants is always justified when one's life is at risk?  If that is not the argument you are presenting then could you please clarify your position.

55 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

P.S. You're 5 more times to get struck by lightning than shot by a rifle round. Handguns overwhelmingly dominate gun homicide because they're typically cheaper, easy to conceal, and less cumbersome than rifles. Rifles are used by military personnel in combat zones for a variety of reasons that are completely inapplicable either for self-defense or for lone-man spree-shooting. I did the math for this once when some dork on normiebook got all uppity about "u crayzee gun nuts and your ASSAULT RIFLES!" with data from the FBI crime statistics database.
 

We (or at least me and as I was lead to assume by the timing of the release of this thread you) are not arguing about all cases of gun related death, but soley about mass shootings.  The topic of total gun related deaths is a very important discussion to have, but it is not one related to the current argument.  As such statistics about whether a person is more likely to get hit by lightning or a rifle are completely irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FenrirDarkWolf said:

In a sense, he does have a point tho

Zara is 100% correct. 

Anyone who disagrees is an un-american pansy virtue signaller and part of the victim industrial complex. 

You will all be cleansed during the annual PURGE. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

By the most recent FBI homicide statistics you're nearly three times more likely to be beaten to death with bare hands than murdered with a rifle (including "assault weapons"). Of 8,124 murders involving firearms in 2014, only 248 involved rifles of any type. Even if you want to reach as far as humanly possible, by including "other guns" and "type not stated", you'd still only come up with 2,300, or a little over one quarter of all firearm homicides.

The point of all this? Rifles are not a problem. At all. You just have a "solution" in mind and you're so hell-bent on "doing something for the children" that everything looks like a "problem" for your "solution" to "solve". Meanwhile, 30 gang shootings a week will still happen in Chicago because you're obsessed with what people use to kill vermin in Texas, and ignoring psychological, physical and economic factors that are actually driving these issues.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Victor-933 said:

https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

By the most recent FBI homicide statistics you're nearly three times more likely to be beaten to death with bare hands than murdered with a rifle (including "assault weapons"). Of 8,124 murders involving firearms in 2014, only 248 involved rifles of any type. Even if you want to reach as far as humanly possible, by including "other guns" and "type not stated", you'd still only come up with 2,300, or a little over one quarter of all firearm homicides.

The point of all this? Rifles are not a problem. At all. You just have a "solution" in mind and you're so hell-bent on "doing something for the children" that everything looks like a "problem" for your "solution" to "solve". Meanwhile, 30 gang shootings a week will still happen in Chicago because you're obsessed with what people use to kill vermin in Texas, and ignoring psychological, physical and economic factors that are actually driving these issues.

Again such arguments of these statistics are irrelevant to the current discussion.  We are currently discussing the best method in order to minimize the number of mass shootings and primarily we are examining the proposed method of gun control and regulation as one method to limit and/or reduce the number of said mass shootings that occur each year within the United States.  However just because we are using one method does not preclude us from also exploring other avenues such as the other factors that drive these issues.  The fact that are things causing more death or harm does not mean we should ignore discussion about an issue that is causing less total death or harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Saxon said:

That does tend to be the case with sophistry.

But if you were to check any of the arguments they would fall apart pretty easily. For example the average lightning fatalities in the USA are 2.5 per year, compared to ~300 per year in rifle homicides.

Sophist arguments are designed to annoy people by engaging them in long winded debates...when it would be so easy for anybody to just perform a fact check before responding...or, better yet, realise when somebody is trying to antagonise them.

Recognise the bait and move on.

I can always rely on you to get so caught up in your desperate intellectual posturing that you're  completely deaf, dumb, and blind to the essence of whatever it is you're responding to, lmao.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

The fact that you have found a handgun with a similar level of lethality in no way refutes my original point which is that certain guns are too lethal and the process of acquiring one should in some way be limited, regulated, or outright banned.

So I think here is the real crux of our disagreement and in order to go further in this discussion it would behoove you to further clarify this point.  Are you arguing from the position that any amount of lethal force against any number of potential assailants is always justified when one's life is at risk?  If that is not the argument you are presenting then could you please clarify your position.

We (or at least me and as I was lead to assume by the timing of the release of this thread you) are not arguing about all cases of gun related death, but soley about mass shootings.  The topic of total gun related deaths is a very important discussion to have, but it is not one related to the current argument.  As such statistics about whether a person is more likely to get hit by lightning or a rifle are completely irrelevant. 


You didn't make a point, you stated something which resembled a factual claim and then followed it up with a set of unsubstantiated assumptions that you expect to be granted as true because it was just vague enough to be interpreted charitably, in what I presume was a rhetorical maneuver to appeal to moderation. You then went on to dichotomize firearms into "can be used to kill/injure a large amount of people" and "for self-defense" when these categories not only lack mutual exclusivity but share an almost 100% overlap. This was followed up by a contradictory jump to conclusions where you apparently believe that using handguns for self-defense is okay, but not if they're "highly lethal".

You're all over the place.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

 best method in order to minimize the number of mass shootings and primarily we are examining the proposed method of gun control and regulation 

So, in other words, you're still convinced that the issue is an inanimate manufactured object and not the person holding it. Gotcha.

You know, this is why legislation to help this shit never gets passed. It's not because of the NRA. It's because of people like you who have been outright ignoring actual reasonable ideas and legislation (such as the Coburn Proposal for free universal background checks that Sen. Harry Reid sat on and refused to bring to a vote) and instead hammering on gun owners. We're sick of it. You bitch and whine about compromise but when the time comes we give and you take -- there's never any compromise.

 

And now there's talk of using a secret government watchlist with no oversight, no due process, and no system of appeals to strip someone of a constitutionally enumerated right. Hell, a leading Senator recently came out came out and blamed the concept of "due process" for the inability to pass gun control laws, because fuck fair trials by jury, amirite?

Do you not understand how fucked up that sounds?

What if, by attending an "undesirable" event -- let's say, another Occupy Wall Street movement -- you got put on a list to where you couldn't buy internet service (let's say, something about "distributing dangerous ideas")? Let's go further, the only way you know you're on the list is to try and buy internet service, and the only chance you have of getting off that list is to file a lawsuit against the federal government. Does that sound like anything "reasonable" to you?

Because it sure as shit doesn't sound reasonable to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zaraphayx said:


You didn't make a point, you stated something which resembled a factual claim and then followed it up with a set of unsubstantiated assumptions that you expect to be granted as true because it was just vague enough to be interpreted charitably, in what I presume was a rhetorical maneuver to appeal to moderation. You then went on to dichotomize firearms into "can be used to kill/injure a large amount of people" and "for self-defense" when these categories not only lack mutual exclusivity but share an almost 100% overlap. This was followed up by a contradictory jump to conclusions where you apparently believe that using handguns for self-defense is okay, but not if they're "highly lethal".

You're all over the place.

Ok then allow me to clarify my point because the language I used may have caused some misunderstandings.  I believe that an individual does have a right to defend themselves with lethal force when there life is on the line.  I however do not believe that a person should be allowed tools of any amount of lethality, such as a tank, for the purpose of self defense.  So there is some point between knife and tank at which point a tool becomes too lethal to be acceptable to own for the purpose of self defense.  In the discussion around gun control we are attempting to argue exactly where that point lies.

So as I have attempted to clarify my position could you please do the same?  I will repeat my previous question.

Are you arguing from the position that any amount of lethal force against any number of potential assailants is always justified when one's life is at risk? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

So, in other words, you're still convinced that the issue is an inanimate manufactured object and not the person holding it. Gotcha.

You know, this is why legislation to help this shit never gets passed. It's not because of the NRA. It's because of people like you who have been outright ignoring actual reasonable ideas and legislation (such as the Coburn Proposal for free universal background checks that Sen. Harry Reid sat on and refused to bring to a vote) and instead hammering on gun owners. We're sick of it. You bitch and whine about compromise but when the time comes we give and you take -- there's never any compromise.

Wow at no point have I stated that I am not in favor of universal background checks.  In fact I am in favor of them and I think it would be wonderful step in helping to prevent or limit the occurrence of mass shootings.  If you actually want to know where I stand on a subject feel free to ask me rather then making assumption and attacking a strawman.

 

8 minutes ago, Victor-933 said:

And now there's talk of using a secret government watchlist with no oversight, no due process, and no system of appeals to strip someone of a constitutionally enumerated right. Hell, a leading Senator recently came out came out and blamed the concept of "due process" for the inability to pass gun control laws, because fuck fair trials by jury, amirite?

Do you not understand how fucked up that sounds?

What if, by attending an "undesirable" event -- let's say, another Occupy Wall Street movement -- you got put on a list to where you couldn't buy internet service (let's say, something about "distributing dangerous ideas")? Let's go further, the only way you know you're on the list is to try and buy internet service, and the only chance you have of getting off that list is to file a lawsuit against the federal government. Does that sound like anything "reasonable" to you?

Because it sure as shit doesn't sound reasonable to me.

That doesn't sound reasonable to me either.  I do believe that is clearly possible to go too far in regards to limiting access to firearms and the examples you are providing do seem clearly too far to me.  So again please don't just make assumptions about what I do and do not support and instead try to actual engage me in a discussion regarding the arguments being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

Ok then allow me to clarify my point because the language I used may have caused some misunderstandings.  I believe that an individual does have a right to defend themselves with lethal force when there life is on the line.  I however do not believe that a person should be allowed tools of any amount of lethality, such as a tank, for the purpose of self defense.  So there is some point between knife and tank at which point a tool becomes too lethal to be acceptable to own for the purpose of self defense.  In the discussion around gun control we are attempting to argue exactly where that point lies.

So as I have attempted to clarify my position could you please do the same?  I will repeat my previous question.

Are you arguing from the position that any amount of lethal force against any number of potential assailants is always justified when one's life is at risk? 

Your language didn't cause any misunderstandings. You have an inferior command of the facts when it comes to the context in which one firearm could be considered a more effective instrument than another firearm, but you want to prescribe a solution to the gun control "problem" that appears to be well-reasoned and moderate in order to distract from the fact that you hold gun owners in such contempt that you believe yourself better equipped than they to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their use, while not even possessing a basic understanding of the objects which you are advocating be regulated.

I supplemented my criticism of your position with a statement that implies that I place a high enough value on my life that I would be willing to take an infinite amount of shots to preserve it. If you're going to attempt to twist someone's words to set up a counterpoint you should try to make it less obvious.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

Wow at no point have I stated that I am not in favor of universal background checks.  In fact I am in favor of them and I think it would be wonderful step in helping to prevent or limit the occurrence of mass shooting.

...

So again please don't just make assumptions about what I do and do not support and instead try to actual engage me in a discussion regarding the arguments being made.

And at no point have I stated I oppose background checks on principle. I think you need to take your own advice.

I only support UBCs as long as they impose no undue burdens on citizens. Unfortunately, so far, every UBC law proposed (or passed, at the state level) has done exactly that.

Washington State's I-594 and similar legislation pushed in Nevada and elsewhere are good examples of what I oppose. The law does nothing to alter existing NICS infrastructure (which, by the way, is so overloaded right now that denials are being refused appeal). Instead, all it does is force you to go pay an FFL $50-$100 to run a background check and formal ownership transfer on someone you loan a gun to, and then they have to do it again to give the gun back. That's potentially $200 and a few hours, just to loan a gun to a friend at the range.

Fuck. that.

 

36 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I am not sure what this 'more people die by x than y, ergo y is not a problem' argument is meant to mean.

It's possible that both x and y are problems, for example.

The point is, deaths by rifle are so statistically insignificant they might as well be a rounding error, and yet millions and millions of dollars are spent every year trying to ban or restrict rifles when pistols are, largely through gang violence, killing twenty times as many people.

At some point you have to start questioning why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DevilBear said:

Can we all just agree that the media coverage is a huge part of the issue here? They're giving these people exactly what they want- attention.

IIRC it's actually been discovered via research that this non-stop coverage results in a temporary spike in copycat incidents. Similar results surround celebrity deaths, with short-term spikes in suicides.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Saxon said:

No. Do you really think failing to report mass murders would improve things? Or that islamist terror attacks are for attention?

There's a difference between reporting that a mass shooting has taken place, and spending three weeks dissecting every facet of the shooter's life and making them a household name. Every one of us knows the name of the Orlando shooter but hardly anyone can name any victims.

 

39 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Because when rifle massacres occur they (?justifiably) receive much more attention than ongoing gang land violence.

I had thought this was obvious.

Why is it justifiable in comparison to gang violence? For someone so adamant about saving lives you sure do seem complacent and accepting of gang violence. Twice as many people were killed in Chicago last year, largely using pistols, as were killed by rifles in the entire rest of the US, but you still want to focus on rifles?

 

I'm starting to understand why so many people here openly mock you in these threads.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, gun control seems like one of those things that there really isn't a good answer for. Guns are so easy to get illegally if you really want to (esp south since we touch mexico, w/ cartels and shit), that if you outright banned them, you have mostly bad people with guns instead of regular joes. Australia did a buy-back program, but that would probably just get poorer folks to cash in and the real paranoid ones to keep. 

I definitely like the 'driving school' approach to guns. A test, a permit, 6 wk course, etc before you buy a gun. Big background check, two references of character, reason, even. Its pretty strict, sure, but a lot of rules are sometimes so that we have the illusions of controlling something.

Realistically and honestly, I don't think guns will never not be a problem in america. If a bunch of kids dying wasn't enough to spark that change, nothing will until representatives have something to gain from doing it. 

As far as the shooter always getting attention, its an attempt to try and control a situation, if you think about it like that. Humans feel responsible in some way when one of their own up and kills a bunch of other ones. You delve into their life and history to find data to say, "If we seek this out about this shooter and apply it to other people, we can try and prevent it." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took the time to read this entire thread and I realize why our rights to keep and bear arms are being trampled. Wholesale. Those that are not in the know, see an "Assault Rifle" or "Assault Weapon", not knowing they were terms manufactured by the media to use as a blanket statement. No such thing as an Assault Rifle. Never was. When I carried one in service to Uncle Sam, it was a rifle, designated as an M16 or a short barreled carbine, designated GAU-5 A/A. It was not an assault rifle. I can still tear one down and reassemble one blindfolded. I'm just one of many that has put my life in the line of fire for Freedom so you can have this forum. I still carry the physical scars, thank you.

Now, let's say we do a full-on firearms ban like Australia enacted. This is what Senator Dianne Feinstein and her cronies want to enact. Do you really think the criminal element will just line up with the rest of the legal firearms owners to turn in their weapons? Sorry, not going to happen. I would be willing to bet the flow of illegal firearms and ammunition from Canada, Mexico and other points would be high. If there is one thing about gangs and the random totally deranged wanna-be serial killer, they will find a way to get hold of the tools they need to do their dirty work. That particular ban, in the good ol' US of A, would  just be a feel good measure.

So, with the general populace disarmed, who's going to stop the gangs from going door to door, taking what they want? Will you wait patiently for the Police to show up (at some undetermined time) while Joe Serial Killer is kicking your front door down? See my point? Will your cast-iron frying pan save you from a small gang of armed hoods?

And, let's take this farther. The Gov't declares all firearms to be relinquished post-haste. I wouldn't do it, to tell you the truth. So, do you think the Gov't will get the US Armed Forces to go 'collect' the now-illegal firearms? I don't think it would happen. If I were still serving, I know I would rather be cooling my heels in the brig than to be facing off with a civilian that hunts for subsistence, who just happens to have a .460 Weatherby or some other large caliber hunting piece. My body armor, back then and what's available today, won't stop that type of a round. No Sir, not at all.

Well, you might say, 'Let's get NATO to supply the muscle!" Do you honestly think a NATO soldier would have the cajones (big brass ones) to try a door to door search? I'm thinking they wouldn't dare step foot on US soil. They aren't stupid. Get my drift?

The dreaded "LIST" of who shouldn't have a firearm should not be pulled verbatim from some other list. Did you know Senators, Assemblymen, Governors, Mayors and Police Chiefs have inadvertently been put on that "No Fly" list? Because of their position, their names can be removed pretty easily. Not so for the common Joe Serial Killer. I had trouble recently because a distant relative, who had my first name as his middle name, was on death row for a murder. My wife and I had to cancel our vacation while I took tons of documentation to my friendly neighborhood consulate to prove I was not the d00d on death row. We did get to take a trip the next year, thankfully.

This list, if we make one, should be built carefully. Not taken wholesale from some other list. There is too much to lose if this list is just jammed together to satisfy some Senator's "Feel Good" bill requirements. Or better yet, let's enforce the existing laws. Isn't that a novel idea? It won't happen, because the Police will be busy kicking down Fred Law Abiding Firearms Owner's front door, trying to take away his firearms because his neurotic neighbor doesn't like them to be so close to their home.

Honestly, the only law we should entertain is a background check that really is a background check. You know, actually check to see that Joe Serial Killer was doing B&E as a minor and preventing his arse from obtaining a firearm. Big deal if it takes a few classes, an in-depth written test, a practical with pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns, followed by what might end up being as much as a six month wait while they check you out. Better this than infringing on the Second Amendment. Our Second Amendment. My brethren and I fought to keep it tangible so don't give it away.

/rant

Edited by Kellan Meig'h
Fixing my typographical errors
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I want to get a gun and go target shooting, am I still a liberal?

I mean, I don't hate gays or Hispanics, and I am not a religious person, so I wouldn't fit in very well with the GOP.

Then again, people associate liberals with SJW culture and wanting to ban guns.

HALP GUYS

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

If I want to get a gun and go target shooting, am I still a liberal?

I mean, I don't hate gays or Hispanics, and I am not a religious person, so I wouldn't fit in very well with the GOP.

Then again, people associate liberals with SJW culture and wanting to ban guns.

HALP GUYS

Congrats, you're a normal human being with interests and likes and dislikes and moderate political views!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All four proposed gun control bills failed in the Senate today.

Quote

STUPID NRA BATHES IN THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT

Guess what, two of those bills were floated by Republicans, and the Democrats voted them down along.party lines. Seems the Dems would rather the streets run red than compromise with Republicans.

 

What were those two bills, you ask? One approved additional funding for the NICS background check system. As I said already, NICS is heavily overloaded, and appeals to denials are no longer even being processed.

Democrats don't want background checks, they want to hurt gun owners.

 

The other bill would have allowed the "no-fly list" to be used to deny sales however it would also create an oversight agency in order to ensure the application of due process.

Democrats don't want to allow due process, they want to hurt gun owners.

 

After Sandy Hook, Repulicans floated the Coburn Proposal for universal background checks, which would have opened up NICS to the public (right now you have to be a licensed dealer to use NICS) and created a free-to-use online portal for conducting background checks. Democrat Harry Reid sat on that proposal and refused to bring it to a vote, because the Democrat bill (making it illegal to transfer guns without paying an FFL for a background check) died in congress.

Democrats don't want workable UBCs, they want to hurt gun owners.

 

I'm fucking sick and tired of being lectured like I'm doing something wrong, when the fucking Democrats doing the lecturing are playing the fucking "my way or the highway" game. You want to know why gun owners are so stubborn? This is why. Democrat politicians don't want to hear shit unless it involves hurting gun owners or Republicans in some way.

Edited by Victor-933
grammar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...