Yeah.... that’s not how logic works guy. Is the argument that school shooters should be restricted to only 3 shells? Or is it that they should need to get tags from fish and game? It’s not a real strong analogy even if we get what you’re going for.... but I mean... even failing that... I imagine more fowl are illegally poached than kids. I also imagine that more die from preventable disease, being hit by cars, certainly being eaten by wild animals. So perhaps school kids do have more protection that wild birds, and the whole sign should have seemed obviously flawed?
Oh no, Americunts are too in love with their phallic compensators to realize that nobody ever needs fully-semi-automatic weapon of war that have deer-cooking bullets shot at thirty clips a second, and a barrel shroud (which I'm pretty sure is a shoulder thing that goes up). Nothing bad has ever happened to any unarmed or disarmed population, especially not in the last century, so those backwards savages should just be happy we might let them keep flintlocks behind a seven-figure fee, following a 20 year background check and on the condition of accepting random cavity searches. Maybe. Unless they're white.
Stupid bigoted racists should just be like the rest of the word, maybe they wouldn't be literally the worst and only country to ever have anything bad happen.
Yeah. I mean, Mexico only has one legal gun store. It’s owned by the state and on a military base. The requirements to own a gun are very strict. Maybe if America followed their example we could lower our gun deaths and gun crime to a level as low as Mexico’s.
drill press, milling machine, and a lathe is all it takes for full auto open bolt with no serial numbers. the guys that are willing to go to jail for life selling heroin will gladly sell weapons. you think nut jobs get good kills with civilian sporting rifles wait till you see what happens when true military assault weapons are used. so ya go ahead and ban the guns.
I’m not saying this as an insult. I’m saying this seriously. I think a lot of people are ignorant about guns. Many people have little or no experience with machine work or engineering “hands on.” The idea that you can make things yourself doesn’t really occur to them. In their world things “like that” can only be bought or made by huge machines.
Humans can make ammunition. Humans can make guns. Neither actually takes that much skill and none of the individual tools or materials needed is illegal or can reasonably be made illegal without impacting every day life because they are common use things. A reasonable effective and reliable weapon can be made at the hardware store and with simple tools for less than $100 and a little know how. A complete idiot can construct a still deadly weapon, and someone who doesn’t care can make a working “gun” for under $20.
3D printers keep getting better and cheaper, but so do CNC machines. My buddy just bought one used for cheap. Several friends own businesses making firearms and components for civilians as well as military and police- that they run from their garages. So like so many businesses that will always have customers, making guns illegal just pushes them completely underground.
So let’s ignore hunters, people who want “home security” etc. what does a ban on guns do for people who live, work, or play in rural areas where things like wild cats etc. make it a legitimate matter of safety to carry a weapon? Where you may be many hours and many miles away from another human let alone a peace officer, and where rescue surely won’t show up before that cat gets you out on a mountain?
You want to ban guns to feel safe- but these people legitimately need guns to be safe. It’s very human to assume that our daily lives and experiences are the same as everyone else on the planet and vice versa. But when making broad policy decisions we jut ant do that. You wouldn’t much like it if people went around making huge decisions without considering you would you? So ban guns? No. Not while I’m alive. Can we restrict them? Require training in safety and use, put laws in place that allow the hunter or the home defender or the person on the farm or trail, the shooting range hobbyist to responsibly and safely use their guns? Sure. Arguing gun bans is counter productive to the goal of all sides of the debate: a safe society free of gun crime.
No registration (always leads to confiscation). No licensing or mandated training (just a poll tax and a backdoor to registration rolled into one). No strings. Everyone except for violent felons can own anything a light, medium, or heavy infantry division can have.
The authoritarians have already stated outright that a disarmed citizenry is the goal. That confiscation and ripping up the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the only appropriate measure to them. There can be no negotiation in good faith, no more compromising with our rights.
I appreciate your concerns famousone- but I can’t agree. Firstly, how are we to know who is it is not a violent felling without some sort of background check, the honor system? Next, once a private party buys a gun, how do we stop them from transferring it to a violent felon etc, or find it and return it to the owner or link it to the owner if used in a crime without some information as to identify the gun and the owner?
As for rights- NONE of your rights exist without limitation or responsibility. The right to free speech is subject to libel and slander, perjury, if you speak to encourage violence etc. it can be a crime, treason, etc. you can be arrested for yelling “Fire!” In a crowded theater. If you plea with people to kill a person because you hate them- you can be arrested. A false rape accusation is free speech- but it’s dangerous and it is illegal if caught, and certainly not something we would protect under free speech is it?
Every single right you have can be taken. If you’re convicted of a crime, you can lose rights. Your rights to property can be taken via imminent domain or other government seizure for need. The list goes on. Every citizen is promised the right to bear arms, even if we ignore that “a well regulated militia..” at least suggests the intent is that those bearing arms be trained in some way and responsible- the amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Interpretation of infringed there means to violate. What is a violation is open to interpretation.
In such an interpretation as universal that the right to bear arms includes military grade hardware, there is no prohibition on private citizens owning nuclear weaponry so long as such a weapon was man deployable. Whatever the constitution says this is a case where I would gladly amend it to say otherwise if we are to interpret that these people who largely can’t be trusted with a freaking car could open carry high explosives. That’s to say nothing of mental illness which isn’t a violent felony. Nothing like an unmedicated schizophrenic with an AK47 or a FAMAS with a rifle grenade to really spice up the day.
I cannot trust the opposition. At all. For decades it's been "Nobody wants to take your guns", now look around.
I know it's extreme. But when facing extreme pressure you must respond in kind.
"We just want universal background checks". Ok, open the NICS system to the public and waive familial transfers.
"We just want to kids to be safe" ok, let Eddie Eagle into classrooms so they can learn. It's even free.
"Hell yes we're going take away your ARs, AKs, and everything else that's black and scary! We're going to tear up the Bill of Rights with Red Flag laws, and keep saying your civil right is racist until everyone believes it!" Molon labe, motherfuckers. Send whoever you want, I'll meet them.
The “anti gun” voices have gotten louder, they have gotten far less reasonable, and by and large they are far less informed and acting on emotions only. But that’s true of the “pro gun” side as well. Meeting extremism with extremism tends to end up with ever escalating extremism. After 9/11 Americans wrote blank checks to take civil liberties and rights wholesale. Surveillance, incarceration without just cause or due process: a host of indignities and violations against the US citizenship in pursuit of an imaginary, ill defined, and make believe “safety.”
Here we are a decade plus on- with hard evidence showing the many failures of these initiatives to do what was promised, and little or no solid evidence any of it made American any safer from terrorism. We “got” Bin Ladin, and I’m glad we did- but it didn’t stop the threat of terrorism or even end Isis. “They haven’t done a major attack since...” yeah. Ok. But they weren’t exactly majorly active post 9/11 either on US soil. They also hadn’t been terribly active- most in the US had never heard of them, until 9/11. So we gave away freedoms for a magic rock that prevents sharks from eating you on dry land?
We have finished or are in the midst of several military campaigns to clean up messes created or exacerbated by previous campaigns. We’ve likely created enough future campaigns to keep our kids fighting for 10 generations. My point is 2 fold. 1: yeah. People who are willing to give up rights against a POSSIBILITY of safety or for a feeling of safety aren’t the type of people who founded this country. Who risked war with a major world power- perhaps THE major power in order to be free. History- recent history shows is it’s a bum deal to sacrifice liberty for feeling a little safer.
But 2: meeting extremism with extremism isn’t the way to end a fight unless you’re prepared for genocide and even then it might turn out worse for you if you fail. Tactics is knowing when and where to apply force, not simply trying to bash each other with bigger hammers. There’s an end to all this that doesn’t involve all the screaming and ill will and combativeness. There will ALWAYS be someone who goes extreme. But if you’ve got most of society with you in the middle they are just seen as crazies. When we polarize lines like this the extremists become the heroes to each “cause” and before long you’ve got people who don’t even care that much but just want to be a “somebody” jumping on board.
Stupid bigoted racists should just be like the rest of the word, maybe they wouldn't be literally the worst and only country to ever have anything bad happen.
The authoritarians have already stated outright that a disarmed citizenry is the goal. That confiscation and ripping up the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the only appropriate measure to them. There can be no negotiation in good faith, no more compromising with our rights.
I know it's extreme. But when facing extreme pressure you must respond in kind.
"We just want universal background checks". Ok, open the NICS system to the public and waive familial transfers.
"We just want to kids to be safe" ok, let Eddie Eagle into classrooms so they can learn. It's even free.
"Hell yes we're going take away your ARs, AKs, and everything else that's black and scary! We're going to tear up the Bill of Rights with Red Flag laws, and keep saying your civil right is racist until everyone believes it!" Molon labe, motherfuckers. Send whoever you want, I'll meet them.