Anytime I see antigun stuff, and note I don't own one myself but I believe that it is my right if I wanted to, I don't argue I just ask what they would like to have changed. It might just be me but it seems the majority of anti second amendment people seem to think the NRA or gun owners in general want to remove all laws. In reality they just want to ensure that they can purchase said guns themselves. Most are willing to follow the rules set forth before them and those who aren't usually aren't in the NRA they stole their weapons from someone and changing the laws wouldn't really stop them from getting a stolen gun. However I am always curious if someone can come up with a reasonable new rule that isn't already in existence that they think will lower gun related incidents. It's always something stupid like "all guns are bad we should ban them".
@George Feeny, I think most of the valid criticism of gun ownership in USA that I have seen would be fixed with stricter regulations, and in my opinion that would fix many problems.
@Factory BOY, it won't. Murder rates in every country that banned guns stayed the same. People just found different ways to kill each other
@RustyFapwagon, You're argument is people murder, so it doesn't matter if we help enable them.
If we apply that logic to other examples we can decriminalise the act of selling drugs, because kids would just get them from someone else anyways.
I'm sorry but I just can't agree with that logic.
@Factory BOY, no, my argument is that if you take guns away from people or restrict them you're only hurting the overwhelmingly law abiding population. Doesn't change any crime rate all it does is now people have less guns. That doesn't make sense.
@RustyFapwagon, I never did say take guns away, when I say stricter regulations its because I want just the law abiding citizens to carry weapons. Your assumption is more regulations can't be effective in removing the rotten apples, while I believe they can
@Factory BOY, only law abiding citizens can carry guns. A felon with a gun will do prison time if they're caught. The only regulation that you could impose there that wouldn't hurt the law abiding would be stricter penalties which I agree with.
@RustyFapwagon, I am not entirely sure what the system is for every state, but it is possible to get a gun in America without a background check (buying at gun shows does not require a check), or without a psychiatric evaluation. The reason why so many ppl come by stolen guns so easily is because they are also sold in common shops instead of just specialised shops with extra security.
@Factory BOY, false on the background check statement. That's federal law. Extremely illegal to not do it. You shouldn't need a psych eval. The Obunga Admin tried to instate that and make it so that essentially no one could own guns that had ever been diagnosed with even minor things like minor depression.
@RustyFapwagon, So the Obunga Admin clearly did it ineffectivly, that does not mean it cannot work. My source for the gun show fact is CNN, if I am mistaken my apologies.
@Factory BOY, it's ok. CNN isn't a really good source for anything so I understand the confusion.
@RustyFapwagon, is the gun show statement not true? I'm reading this on governing.com (I don't know how legitimate this source is) - "most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals - federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks"
@Blue Shirted Guy, from a dealer it is very federally illegal. There is no gun show loophole. Private sale varies by county and state but a prohibited possessor is a prohibited possessor and if you were to sell a gun to someone that shouldn't have one you'd do a minimum of 10 years in prison
@RustyFapwagon, as in it's very federally illegal for a licensed dealer to not conduct a check? Though what about a private, unlicensed seller? If a county or state doesn't have any strict/additional requirements past federal law, wouldn't a private seller be able to deal without conducting a check? Isn't that a loophole to get around federal law?
I think the confusion is calling it a "gun show loophole," since the loophole isn't inherently singling out gun shows.
@Blue Shirted Guy, it's not circumventing federal law. An individual is not a dealer. Again though if an individual sells to another individual and they're a prohibited possessor then the seller gets a minimum 10 years. Doesn't happen very often because of that
@RustyFapwagon, whether it's circumventing federal law would depend on the individual, I guess. I think we're just disagreeing on the phrasing of it. After reading more into it I can agree that it's not a loophole, but more of a compromise. It's not a "gun show loophole," but someone could still go to a gun show (or other places) and purchase a gun from a private dealer without being checked, correct? So it's possible, in this country, to purchase a gun without a background check?
I'm glad to hear that, but determining who a prohibited possessor is would be extremely difficult without conducting background checks, meaning it'd be a giant grey area as to whether or not a private seller should be held responsible. And that doesn't even take into account that many private sellers do not need to register the sale, correct? (Depending on the state/county)
@Blue Shirted Guy, no. You cannot purchase a gun from a dealer without a background check. Depending on the state and county an individual MAY be able to sell a firearm to another individual. This is because this is a private sale that the government cannot and shouldn't have control over.
There is no national firearms registry, nor should there be. Some states do have a firearm registry. Registration leads to confiscation in literally every country it's ever happened in which is why it's so strongly opposed and will likely never happen.
The solution to firearm crime is actually really simple. Stricter sentences for people committing crimes with firearms. It's been done on the east coast (though the programs/laws were shut down by liberals because they were deemed "racist" because minorities happened to be the ones breaking the laws). If you add a mandatory extra 5 years to any prohibited possessor caught with a gun the gun crime will decrease as we saw in those states.
@RustyFapwagon, i don't want to turn this into a discussion about whether there should be a registry or how to reduce firearm crime haha.
You cannot purchase a gun from a licensed dealer without a background check, I got that. But depending on the state/county, an individual may be able to buy a firearm from a private seller without a background check, correct?
And if there's no registration/proof of sale or background check involved, it'd be nearly impossible to determine whether a private seller should be legally responsible for dealing a gun to a prohibited possessor, correct?
I was only originally interested in whether Factory's statement was true or not. You said it was false, but it is possible to get a gun in America without a background check or without a psychiatric evaluation. After our conversation, I don't understand how that was false. It's possible to do so from a private seller, but NEVER a licensed dealer, right?
@Blue Shirted Guy, psychiatric evaluation has never been a requirement.
Yes you can from a private individual in some states but the penalties for selling to a prohibited possessor are nearly as extreme as the penalties to being a prohibited possessor. It's also never really been an issue that that was legal. Just saying there is a loophole and you can buy a gun without a background check is false. There are many things not provided in that statement.
@RustyFapwagon, that's fair, it was a very broad statement. But I wouldn't classify it as false. Though I wouldn't call it a loophole either. (Edit: Factory didn't call it a loophole, he just said it's possible to get a gun in America with a background check, and you said that was false)
I know selling to a prohibited possessor is subject to an extreme penalty, but wouldn't you agree that it's very difficult to hold a private seller legally responsible for this? If they don't have to conduct a background check or register the sale?
@Blue Shirted Guy, it is but that's also part of why these sales are rarely an issue. No one wants to do 10 years in prison because they sold an old gun they didn't want anymore.
It is false. It's like saying "you can't own an automatic gun"
While the above statement is "true" in the sense that you can't just go buy one, you can purchase a transferable machine gun (extremely expensive and rare) manufactured before 1984, you can fill out your tax stamp and wait 12 months or so, and you can own one.
Firearms law is very, very convoluted and complex in the US. The little differences could land you in prison for a long time. That's why I say it's false. I don't want to give bad info.
@RustyFapwagon, example of the above:
If you put a vertical fore grip on a pistol, you're a felon unless you pay $5 for a tax stamp and wait 12 months for the ATF to approve it
That's 15 years for manufacturing an AOW or "any other weapon" for literally sticking a piece of plastic on the end of a gun
@RustyFapwagon, I don't see how you are comparing those 2 statements, other than them both being broad.
Factory's was a true statement, because it *is* possible to purchase a gun without a background check. Your example is a false statement, because you *can* own an automatic gun. There's tons of grey area in the statements, but one is true and one is false. His statement was not false, just extremely broad.
Either way, that's fair that you don't want to give bad info.
@Blue Shirted Guy, I'd consider broad false when a mistake there could stick you in prison for a decade or more. But that's just me.
Point is there are a metric fvckton of restrictions and laws in the US already and a ton of them don't make sense.
@Factory BOY, what should be done to fix it though? What rules or regulations would you suggest?
@RustyFapwagon, I see what you're saying, but calling it false is extremely misleading. You calling it false is what confused me in the first place, because I was certain it was a broad, but true statement. In that sense I felt like you were giving bad info.
That's an entire different discussion haha
@Blue Shirted Guy, it's not misleading to say that a half truth is false
@George Feeny, my stance is it's easy to say more rules can fix a problem but without proposing what those new rules are the statement is rather meaningless. I'm not saying I disagree with new rules I just have never heard of any new rules that don't already exist other then those already in place.
@RustyFapwagon, if a half truth was always false than we wouldn't have the term "half truth." A half truth is a statement that can be completely true in itself, but only part of the whole truth. That's what his statement was. It was not false.
If you said it was a half truth and then explained why, i would've completely understood. But when you called it false you implied that it's not possible to get a gun in this country without a background check, because that's all he stated. I'm not trying to criticize you or anything, because I see that your intention was to avoid giving bad info. But calling it false was bad info
@Blue Shirted Guy, no. Because that statement is false. There are many qualifiers and variables for that. It depends on the state, county, who your buying it from, hell it even depends on the kind of gun.
Just saying you can do it is false.
@RustyFapwagon, that's why it's a half truth - because there are many qualifiers and variables. But it's not a false statement. He just said it is possible in this country for someone to buy a gun without a background check. That is a half-truth. It is possible for some people, but the statement doesn't cover the whole truth - the variables. It is not false. It is possible.
@Blue Shirted Guy, a half truth is false. I don't understand what you aren't getting about this. What he said isn't right in most situations. I'd consider that false.
@RustyFapwagon, a half truth is not inherently false. It is often a broad, but true statement that doesn't cover the whole truth. That's exactly what his statement was. A half-truth and a falsity are 2 different things, you know this.
@Blue Shirted Guy, you're wrong. Go try to buy a gun at a dealer without a background check. Tell them that they should because it's true sometimes.
Oh wait that's fvcking retarded
@RustyFapwagon, I'm not wrong, they are two different things. Now you're just being stubborn. It's possible for me to get a gun without a background check somewhere in this country, that's 100% true. No, I could not go up to any dealer and use your logic, and nowhere did I even remotely imply that. And you know it.
I don't know why you feel the need to do this. I was actually enjoying discussing something with you for once and I came out of this knowing more about the subject. But for some reason you couldn't just acknowledge that his statement wasn't false, as that's why I replied to you in the first place.
Again, it's not possible to go to any dealer and get a gun without a background check. That's not what he said. He said it's possible in this country to get a gun without a background check. That's a true statement in itself and a half-truth when full context is given to it.
@Factory BOY, yeah but criminalizing the act of selling drugs does really nothing. Id bet $1,000 that 1 out of every 30 kids at my school is a dealer. I would bet more money that the numbers are worse in richer schools. The reason I say that is because last year alone I met 6 dealers (without them knowing I knew they were at first) just because I overheard them talking about selling IN CLASS. Then, they'd OPENLY talk about it to you. They'd straight up ask "do you want to buy some weed?". They'll even drive it to your house. It's really common. So.. yeah. Kids can get drugs from a lot of people really.
@Factory BOY, you're totally right though. My source is my personal experience and 2 guys I knew who I found out sold guns in chicago and philly that they bought in other states without a check at gunshows and from registered owners who would report the guns stolen later
@George Feeny, they've tried but the NRA said no
@Blue Shirted Guy, @RustyFapwagon, I once saw a video of 13 year old kid with a hidden go pro successfully buy a rifle at gun show. Whether or not you call it a loophole, and whether or not this is an issue in multiple states, it seems like a pretty tricking big problem that has a relatively easy fix.
@Pete Carroll, oh I completely agree. The reason I didn't call it a loophole was because it seems to have been a compromise in the law between "those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all." Calling it a loophole implies that it was an overlooked flaw. To me, it was a middle ground between sense and nonsense, and the issue needs to be fixed.
@Factory BOY, what specific regulation would you enact, and how would it not infringe on law abiding people's right to own a gun?
@Blue Shirted Guy, yes. You can buy a gun in this country without a background check. The black market is very easily found. So requiring a background check is basically irrelevant. Criminals buy on black market. Law abides buy from licensed dealers. Gun Crimes committed by law abiding people are extremely rare.
@big freedom, I understand what you're saying but I don't really see your overall point. So because criminals have access to a black market we shouldn't have background checks? Background checks don't just distinguish criminals from non-criminals. Hence Pete Carrol's example of a 13 year old non-criminal purchasing a gun. Obviously there isn't some pandemic of 13 year olds buying guns, but it portrays the purpose of a background check.
Again though, I don't want to have a debate about gun control. My entire response was based upon Rusty calling Factory's statement false. Im pretty sure the only time I mentioned anything about my actual opinion on background checks was in my reply to Pete (and now to you)
(Edit: also - "criminals buy on black market. Law abides buy from licensed dealers." The whole conversation was about the middle ground there - those who buy from private sellers. So not sure why you made that statement.)
@George Feeny, my problem is not people owning guns. My problem is that every time the government tries to implement new laws and technologies (designed purely to increase the safety of guns and keep them out of criminals hands) the NRA launches a crusade, falsely claiming that democrats are trying to "ban the second amendment and take our guns away". The NRA says they're "defending people's rights" but they don't care about people. They care about selling guns and making money.
@StoneFarb, "gun control" is not the same thing as "banning guns". We should be able to have guns, but there has to be control. You can't use a smartphone nowadays without scanning your fingerprint. Why can't we do that with guns? I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't help the NRA make money.
I don't understand how people keep forgetting this shjt
edit: just noticed dude in the white shirt has a Norinco MAK90 with a fiberforce stock
@RustyFapwagon, because its easier to ignore statistics you don't like rather than construct a decent argument
@Nosferatu Zodd, and that goes for multiple sides on multiple issues
@RustyFapwagon, because I've also seen gun toting God fearing Americans sleep with loaded pistols hanging out from their pillows.
They'll kill themselves by accident before hitting someone they mean to... like the woman who got shot while driving by her toddler because she left her gun just hanging out? Yeah- I really don't trust them. They aren't even safe from themselves.
@SchroedingerPussPuss, lol you know how many people carry? A fvckton. Instances like that are pretty rare. Sure there are idiots, but just like you can't ban fast cars because some people drive dumb you can't take away rights because someone fvcked up
@RustyFapwagon, when they appear once to twice a month, it's not that rare. I didn't say ANYWHERE about taking away rights. You ASSUMED that was my intention. I believe we can own guns in America. I also believe that some (I said SOME not ALL) laws should be stricter... and people assume Conservatives are violent because owning violent objects is associated with violence, even if it doesn't make you violent... and the banter of,"I'LL KILL OBAMA IF HE STEPS ON MY LAND... AND THEM MEXICANS TOO."
@SchroedingerPussPuss, it's super rare. Thousands and thousands of people carry and handle guns everyday. Your misunderstanding of a situation supports your opinion.
@SchroedingerPussPuss, nice comment edit, fąggot
Also nice strawman, fąggot
Also hardly any conservatives say that, fąggot
Shjtloads of people on the left say similar shjt, fąggot
@RustyFapwagon, my buddy had one with a wood thumb hole stock. It was one of the nicest ak derivative I've fired.
@GunSupporter, I love mine. They're expensive now but I probably will buy another one at some point.
@RustyFapwagon, I like variety. I don't have more than one of any gun. What I have in the AK family are my Vepr, sks, and 7.62 saiga.
@GunSupporter, an AK is an AK though (assuming you don't buy a shjt quality one). The reason I like the MAK90 is the receiver thickness and the chromelined barrel. I want to buy one to mod and keep mine original.
Have been looking at a "para" SKS from Norinco for awhile though. Those seem like they'd be cool to own.
@RustyFapwagon, they are really fun to fire. It's like firing a cross between a mini 30 and an AK. Surprisingly they aren't too expensive since they pass a lot of the harsh laws in NY and cali.
@RustyFapwagon, I can honestly say I enjoy my IMI first model Galil more than any of my AR-15 derivatives. The coolest thing about AKs is that there is a model for people with any tastes.
@Barry Dylan, Galil's are awesome. Id love one but I own too many guns in 7.62x39. AK platform is crazy diverse. I'll do a Krink style SBR at some point but then I might be done buying guns for that round.
Probably going to pick up a PTR or FAL next though. I need a .308 battle rifle.
@RustyFapwagon, FN FAL is a pretty solid platform. I haven't had one jam since I got it, the whole thing is heavy and the original sights rattle like crazy but out of all the Full auto .308 this one is the only I couldn't get rid of. I couldn't give that gun enough praise for all it does. 9.5/10. Only drawback I have are those sights.
@Barry Dylan, I wouldnt be looking for a transferable one since they're extremely rare. If I do get one it'll be semi only. I've looked into SCAR-H too but the cost is insane.
@RustyFapwagon, I was lucky enough to get my FAL from my dad. I honestly can't say anything about the SCAR-H. I am yet to get my hands on one, nobody I know would spend the money on one, they would probably double their profits by lowering their price.
This would be the shortest civil war ever.
@Bobaganusche88, 8:00am: the left declares civil war! 8:01am: the civil war has ended! Trump was still sleeping the whole time.
Edit: in the wake of the recent KKKar crash attack, the jokes of this post got knocked down a few pegs.
But whatever you do, please don't prevent people with dangerous disorders obtain weapons.
This meme sucks
I mean far right extremists do kill about as much as Muslim terrorists per year in the U.S. I believe the statistic was. Though I don't know what the numbers of each group taking part in violence is.
@Monad Vairocana, you're gonna need some major credible courses because you are extremely wrong.
@TheSecretSavage, the government counts 62 far right extremist attacks taking a total of 106 lives between 9/12/01 and 12/31/16. The University of Maryland's START says there wre 81 attacks by far right extremists leading to 131 deaths.
Over the same span there were 10 islamic extremist attacks in the US leading to 94 deaths
@TheSecretSavage, Apparently not. Though if you missed the fact I stated that this is only counting within U.S. borders I can understand your confusion. However, on a world scale ISIS would be considered a group of far right extremists; such extreme groups in the Muslim category probably account for easily the highest kill count of these far right extremist groups worldwide though.
That said, considering what happened in Portland, the recent bombing of a mosque, and what just happened in Charlottesville, the violent behavior of far right extremists within the U.S. shouldn't surprise you.
Though far right extremist attacks seem to get far less media coverage than do Muslim terror attacks, about 400% less. This is one of the major reasons no one realizes my previous statement, but stats are stats.
@SirLoveday, thank you.
@Monad Vairocana, anytime
@Monad Vairocana, less than 200 deaths over a period of over 10 years
Millions of legally owned weapons
And you think there is a correlation?
Bud take a statistics course please
@RustyFapwagon, Actually I passed undergrad stats with an A. I never mentioned firearms in my statement nor did I cite any correlations stats related to violence, in fact the 3 terror attacks I mentioned did not involve firearms as far as I am aware.
To be clear, I'm actually very pro gun rights. You're preaching to the choir.
You can be violent without guns ;)
Haha, cause most white terrorists are definitely not conservatives!
My dad does own a bushmaster
The same can be said for the 2 Billion Muslims these conservatives are afraid of.
We do know it, as America leads in gun deaths
@Factless, tfw you think that the minority gangs that kill eachother in insane numbers with mostly stolen or otherwise illegally possessed firearms are conservatives
edit: Formless is a gigantic fąggot and has decided to change his comment to say something entirely different because he decided he didn't like his initial statement anymore. I never downvote people, but you earned it
@RustyFapwagon, sounds oddly convenient for how nothing is your fault
@Factless, I mean according to the FBI UCR it's not.
Also rifles like the ones in the picture are almost never used in any murders. Long guns in general rarely are, again per the FBI UCR.
@Formless, statistics show that the vast majority of gun-related homicides have to do with gang activity and involve illegally-obtained handguns.
@Formless, I'm going to assume your "it can't be true because liberals are always right" demeanor is evidence that you are anti gun rights and a lefty
@Formless, please enlighten us since I'm sure you know exactly what you're talking about
@RustyFapwagon, Actually he was on the right track but he didn't provide any actual evidence, so I'll do it for him. 73% of terror attacks in the U.S since 9/11 have been commited by right wingers/conservatives (typically with guns). When it comes to statistical gun deaths as a whole, yes, the majority of them come from gang on gang violence, but you can't deny that that number is fairly key as well. (Also I just realized how dumb the english language can be considering I just used the same word back to back and it makes sense.)
@K1lgore, there are far less terrorist attacks than there are gun deaths. Since 2001, there has never been a year that reached 20 terrorist attacks(the stats I got didn't even reach 10). While gun deaths have been over 33,000 each year.
@K1lgore, where do you get your 'facts' huffington post?
@RustyFapwagon, Unless it's a Muslim at a nightclub. Then it's the worst shooting in us history. Let's not forget he attacked gays also. People who think conservatives are the problem are propaganda victims. Plain and simple. Everyone needs to start looking at the real problem aka the deep state.
@Sir LancesALot, Yeah I know, I was just trying to explain where the guy was coming from. The main argument against gun control are the terror attacks which is seen as a the biggest issue because that's usually when innocents get hurt the most. Formless said that nothing is their (conservative/right wing) "fault" and Rusty said that it isn't despite that most terror attacks are carried out by right wingers. I just find it hypocritical that conservatives are so against muslims and such coming into the country despite that most actual attacks are home grown. So I guess that's my main point here, sorta off topic but it got me going.
@DarthPlaugeistheWise, No, the ADL "exposed" this. These are actual statistics, the government even released something on it. I would suggest using a source other than fox news to find your info. As the typical conservative would say "facts don't care about your feelings". Whether you want to believe it or not, right wingers have commited more terror attacks in the U.S than all other groups of people combined.
@K1lgore, he has nothing. Again the overwhelming majority of firearm crimes have nothing to do with conservatives that legally own guns. There are almost no terror attacks in the US. I have no idea why you'd bring up such an extremely tiny percentage.
Oh shjt wait you're tying into things that dont make sense to try to make conservatives look bad
@K1lgore, hell if even 5% of legal gun owners were committing attacks at the same rate as Muslims in Europe were we'd have some huge issues. You're citing trash that doesn't tie even a percentage point of conservatives in with violent groups
@Sir LancesALot, there's one solution, we have to ban terrorism!
@K1lgore, can't trust the govt statistics when Obama declares people like the bundy ranchers domestic terrorists. The last 8 years of govt has been pure lies and propaganda. Can't trust fbi or anybody anymore. Everybody needs to get that through their head.
@RustyFapwagon, You're going to ask me about bringing up small percentages? You complain all the time about transgender people and all the "problems" they cause despite the fact that they make up less than 1% of the entire U.S population.
And Im not trying to make conservatives look bad, im simply statistics to back up my argument.
Also if you want to get into conservatives being tied to violent groups, have you have done a basic history lesson? All throughout history conservatives have been the most hateful and violent groups, especially in the U.S. The KKK, white supremacists? Those who lynched gays for simply being gay? All conservatives. I would like to hear some examples of recent history when liberals were consistently viloent towards a certain group of people.
@Medic135, Genuis! Why has nobody thought of this before???????
@RustyFapwagon, As a disclaimer, Im not saying all conservatives are violent, im just saying the conservative idealogies have led to a lot of this stuff
@K1lgore, I guess I'm just a more progressive and intellectual thinker than most people, my college professor is really enlightening
@K1lgore, literally all violent protests in the last 12 months in the US, there's your violent liberals pal
@Medic135, I never said liberals cant be violent, im talking about how conistent it is and how the violence aligns with the ideologies. Ex: the KKK aligned themselves with conservatives because back in the day, the conservatives were the ones who placed laws discriminating against the blacks. The people against women's having equal rights to men were conservatives, those who were opposed to gay marriage aligned with conservatives and those against trans rights aligned themselves with conservatives. All of this stuff has generated a lot of hate and therefor violence towards groups with certain physical traits and beliefs. To sum it up, conservative laws and ideologies have both purposeully and accidentally created a lot of hate and violence. Im not saying that all conservatives are violent or racist or anything, but there is a pattern there, where there is not with liberal ideologies, at least not as much or as common.
@K1lgore, let's clarify that "back in the day" the conservative racists supporting the KKK was the Democratic party
@K1lgore, the modern liberal is appalling, the past is behind us but today you have savages and pointing out what's happened before doesn't cover it
@Medic135, Let's leave the Democratic Party and Republican Party out of this, because that's a whole different thing. Republicans and Democrats have flip flopped their beliefs. Im taking about conservatives and liberals, not parties because those are two separate things
@K1lgore, saying that a group of people with a 45% suicide rate isn't fit for mil service is way different than saying that conservatives ideology is violent because a very tiny group attacked people.
When liberals were violent? Sure pal.
Multiple ANTIFA riots, multiple BLM riots, multiple BLM mass shootings
Oh and those we're all in the last 2 years and involved tons of people
Also there were tons of individual cases of people being attacked for being white or a Trump supporter
@Formless, get rekt
@K1lgore, no but the layman reading this chain will associate liberal with Dem and conservative with Rep
@RustyFapwagon, I tried that, he didn't acknowledgeit
@RustyFapwagon, since you have made your stance fairly clear. If the BLM movement regularly started riots causing deaths and property damage and the left protected them saying it's their right to do so. Does a lot of the blame lay with the enablers?
@Formless, I'm not enabling anyone to be a violent cunt nor would I. You pretty obviously don't have much, if any, knowledge on the subject. Why don't you go do some reading and then come back when you have a basic understanding of firearm crime in the US?
@RustyFapwagon, congrats for seeing through an obvious analogy, but it seems pretty clear that America's love of guns and failure to even seek to enact the laws we have or try to fund federal investigations to improve the way we seek to enforce our second amendment right. And why is that? It's not because a bunch of gang bangers and violent people petitioned the Senate to leave things alone
@Formless, the gangs are the perpetrators of the gun crime though. Most of them already illegally possess the weapons. What do you want to do? Make that more illegal?
Yeah that makes sense.
We don't need more laws. We already have them. We need dem politicians to crack down on high crime minority areas.
@RustyFapwagon, yeah have dems crack down on gangs, what do you want them to do make what they do more illegal. And I'm sure it's just the dems standing in front of these neighborhoods which only lie in their jurisdiction keeping people from arresting them.
@Formless, Just gonna toss this in the thread there are no accurate statistics on gun violence or related because the NRA does not allow the collection of nationwide data
@Tricks with a Hose, that's a strong relation to my argument. The NRA plays and feeds into the love of guns to say don't touch my guns associating any gun legislation even the benign with just that. Meanwhile they receive large donations that profit from the sale of guns regardless of sales to good god fearing conservatives or antichrist gang bangers. You can't blame them though, their goal is to make money, but to not see them for what they are that's on the gun nuts. Read into how we can't do any legitimate research into it and how politicians interfere with the execution of existing gun laws and those that enforce them and then tell me the problem is the one who ends up getting the gun after the way has been cleared. So here we are left with fearing and hating the faceless criminal who is likely to end up in prison slave labor for most of their life and they totally deserve it. Americans hating Americans so a couple more Americans can profit from it all, no problems here.
@Formless, you know how you crack down on gangs?
You stop fighting broken windows policing, which dems are doing. You stop trying to make it illegal to set bail, which dems are doing. You institute harsher punishments for repeat offenders, which dems are fighting.
There actually was a project tried in the east that was working to curb gum crime, shut down as racist by dems, that added an extra 5 years minimum for any felon caught with a gun. But the felons were minorities and that was racist.
@Tricks with a Hose, hang on, wait, you think the FBI UCR isn't a collection of data from different law enforcement agencies all over the US?
Fvckin actually lol'd great work.
@Formless, also do you know why you can't restrict what firearms Americans own? Because it's a right, not a privledge.
First of all, I've established with you before that the high suicide rate of trans is because most of them are rejected and bullied throughout most of their life and because they're existence is denied by people like you. So don't even start the bs with that.
Also, while the group of terrorists is small in itself, it's still key that the vast majority of them are conservative. My point was, in the U.S, conservatives demonize muslims because of the terror attacks people have commited under the same name. May I remind you that the amount of muslims that commit terror attacks is a very small percentage, yet they're all grouped together and they're all seen as a huge threat and treated that way. Yet, just around the same percentage of conservatives (comparativley) commit a higher percentage of the total terror attacks, yet nothing is said about them. (Continued)
@RustyFapwagon, alright, first question, should violent felons and criminally insane have access to firearms?
@RustyFapwagon, hold that thought on your response to my comment, you really think its a good idea to allow mentally incompetent Americans to own guns? I own a gun, I've shot multiple calibers of guns I know the damages they can cause, me as the good american citizen I am would not want people with unstable behaviors running around with guns in hand much less now with all these states enacting open carry laws, yes I'm somewhat ok with it but at the same time I really hope there is a acreening process, some people should not be carrying weapons
@Formless, lol short form of my comment haha
@RustyFapwagon, Also, I said that liberals can be violent, but they don't typically cause, or are caused by policies and ideologies that discriminate and therefore create hate. Blacks, women and gays were always oppressed by conservatives even up to recent times (including the last 20-30 years) and that led towards a lot of violence towards those types of people.
And yeah, it's a shame with the ANTIFA and BLM shjt, as I said before, yeah liberals can be violent and this is one of those cases. But I don't see how any liberal ideologies or policies or laws would cause one to have hatred towards a group of people. The only thing that are causing people to do these things are just "they don't agree with me, so they're hitler", but both sides have always done that so it's redundant in this debate.
To recap everything, I don't think all conservatives are violent and in the end, violent people will be violent regardless of their beliefs.
@RustyFapwagon, Actually yeah it does make sense. If guns were harder to get legally, they would be even harder to get illegally. The only reason places like chicago (despite the strict gun laws) have such a high gun crime rate is because the neighboring stages have some of the loosest gun laws.
In australia for example, guns are super hard to get your hands on legally and illegally, so on the black market, they're super expensive and most criminals wouldn't be able to get their hands on them. So yeah, having dtricter gun laws throughout the whole country would help, even with those who obtain them illegally anyway.
@Tricks with a Hose, You get it, im for gun control, but not against guns. There are people who should be allowed to have guns and those who should not. It's only for the saftey of everybody. You need to give up at least a little freedom for safety. Can't always have the best of both worlds.
@K1lgore, reason trans kill themselves doesn't matter, suicide rate does.
Muslims are a concern because though they may not commit as many attacks when they do theyve killed a ton of people. And we're watching what they're doing in Europe and we don't want that here. Your point is moot.
Liberal policies and groups don't create hate? Are you kidding me? Black Lives Matter is literally a domestic terror organization that has organized attacks against police and whites, same with ANTIFA except replace whites with anyone conservative.
"Gun control" is limiting of rights. The insanely overwhelming majority of gun owning individuals don't do anything wrong at. So because a very very tiny minority break the law we should dramatically alter the way guns are purchased? No. Punishing the people breaking the already existing laws works and we know that because we've done it before. We don't need to punish the law abiding, which is all these restrictions do, we need to hurt the criminal.
@Tricks with a Hose, Americans that have committed violent crimes already can't own guns, federal background checks prohibit that, same with people with mental issues that could cause them to be violent. Highly doubt you own any or you'd probably already know that.
Again you forget this is a right, not a privledge. Once you decide that we should start limiting rights because you don't like what's a tiny minority does (already illegally) with them you're starting a much larger issue.
Fvck off with your questions. Make an argument or eat a djck
@RustyFapwagon, my mistake I'm talking about the lobbying to allow anyone to own a gun I'm sure you've heard of that?
@Tricks with a Hose, sure. And there are some restrictions that need to be looked at changing, but understand that because a part of a group wants something that does not mean the whole group wants something. Your trying to strawman me and I'm not about to let you. I never argued for that and I wont. Violent felons shouldn't own guns and they already can't. Even misdemeanor domestic violence will make you fail a background check.
But an example of a thing that makes you a prohibited possessor that doesn't make sense is if you have a Medical Marijuana card. You now will not pass a federal background check because it is illegal to use or be in possession of drugs and firearms. That's not right. If someone has a Medical card they should be allowed to own a gun.
@RustyFapwagon, Uhhh, yeah reasons do matter, reasons matter for pretty much everything, especially this one. If we don't see or admit reasons for things we can't fix them.
I don't recall BLM ever being a policy or law of any sort. Originally, it was made as a protest movement to combat police brutality system and that's still mainly what it is. Yeah, there are racists and radicals in it that just like any movement group, but for the most part it's not. The difference between the KKK and BLM is that BLM is attempting to protest a racially biased system (whether or not they're right is meh) while the KKK was attempting to keep a racially biased system. I think the name "Black Lives Matter too" would be more fitting. And I have looked on the internet for a while now and I can't find anything on BLM having organized attacks on police. Im not being a smartass, I would like you provide some sources on that.
@RustyFapwagon, no you ignorant fap Wagon you said don't infringe on your right to bear arms so decide, should the government leave that right alone as opposed to the other rights which are regulated, or should all Americans regardless of mental illness or past history be allowed to own any arms. Because you can't just decide it makes sense therefore, no it doesn't work that way before we can argue about details you need clear definitions. So do all Americans have the right to bear arms, or do we have to decide what is necessary to ensure that the right people have access to arms within reason for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyone? You won't answer it because it ruins your 'it's a right and can't be infringed' argument which is stupid and incomplete. It is our it isn't so stop gobbling up propaganda and pick one
@K1lgore, not for military entrance the reason doesn't matter. It's also still widely disputed. Many psychiatrist actively disagree with that being the reason.
BLM is a massive group attempting to pass policy? It's used violence since it's creation to do this. They rarely, if ever, have any valid points. They are the modern KKK but theyve got far more support and some moderate members.
Here's one shooting:
Law suit for second shooting in Baton Rouge:
@RustyFapwagon, The issue here is not the responsible gun owners. It's the crazies and the criminals that ruin it for everyone else. If we made it harder for the mentally incompotent and felons to get their hands on guns, we would be safer. It's not punishing the law abiding citizens, it's attempting to make sure that only the law abiding citizens can have guns. I don't think you knkw the difference between gun control and taking away guns. We already have some gun control, but it's not good enough. Maybe if the punishments were boosted and there were more screenings and such, gun violence wouldn't be as big of an issue.
@Formless, did you just repeat Rusty's argument back to him as if it was your own?
@Formless, fvck off cunt
@Medic135, sorry looks like he already admitted he was for gun regulation but doesn't seem to see that saying that these people shouldn't have guns is the same as infringing on their rights, which is done all the time but only matters when someone with a horse in the race convinces them gun regulation is all guns banned or nothing.
@K1lgore, mostly criminals, not crazies. FBI UCR confirms that. Very few mentally ill shootings in the US and they make up a very very tiny percentage.
It's absolutely punishing law abiding citizens. Gun control is absolutely punishing law abiding citizens. You're telling someone that they can't own something because someone else did something wrong. That's not right.
There are enough screenings. We tried boosting punishments and it worked but dems shut the project down as racist
@Formless, I'm not for gun regulation? Nice strawman fąggot. I'm for criminal regulation. If you fvck up you should be punished hard. No one here is arguing for a blanket ban or total unrestriction. Go get a real argument or fvck off
@RustyFapwagon, oh good you know basic fallacies too bad you don't know always sometimes and never, you see as American citizens they either have a right to bear arms or they don't. You can call it criminal regulation but in the end the result is the same. And mental illness isn't always related to crimes. So no strawman this is a straight up question I'm asking that you won't answer. It's not loaded, do ALL Americans have right to bear arms, or do MOST Americans have the right to bear arms?
@Formless, all do. A felon loses rights and their citizenship status is drastically altered. They also aren't allowed to vote anymore and they can be refused a job based on their criminal status. That is different.
Calling it right now. This was a leading question and is bait
@RustyFapwagon, not leading, defining. Then by your definition any felon which is a recent definition, well more recent than the bill of rights anyways, is allowed to strip someone of their citizenship and all their rights for the remainder of their life. As a shifting definition we have found the government can declare anything they want a felony, and recently stretching felony to any kind of rioting including when you are part of a legal protest and someone across town starts to riot you can be arrested and charged with felony rioting, and stripped of your citizenship. That's merely one example. Also unless the mentally ill are also stripped of their citizenship they are allowed to have guns. I don't know about you but I'm more bothered by the idea that the government can call me a felon and strip me of ALL my rights as a citizen including the right to vote for what ever they deem a felony. That's the problem with absolutes, there is no exception.
@Formless, I actually partially agree with that. I don't believe all felonies should be an immediate ban. As I said violent felonies should and the difference is important. Mental illness becomes much much more difficult. The Obunga admin was trying to strip every mentally ill person of their right to own a gun. That's a problem because these illnesses drastically vary. If you had depression as a teenager you wouldn't have ever been allowed to own a gun but if you're diagnosed schizophrenic that's probably an issue. The largest problem is they were setting up to take guns in an illegitimate way because the left has been unable to strip thay right legally. Obunga's admin actually made it illegal for those with a Medical card to own a gun.
That's the issue. We don't need new laws. We have what we need, we should enforce it.
@RustyFapwagon, we can agree on that, but the situation needs to be properly addressed, we can regulate a right but we need to do it based on logic and evidence. If the attempts to analyze and modify how we see gun production and regulation are being actively blocked we should all be concerned, because when people in the government are trying to hide things that have no reason to be hidden we should all be afraid.
@RustyFapwagon, Are you kidding me? There is no correlation between either shooting and blm.
Gavin Eugene Long (Baton Rogue) was angry about police shooting black men, but he said himself he does not affiliate himself with any type of group. NOT BLM, just a Malcom X wannabe.
Same goes for Micha Xavier from the dallas shootings. Was he black? Yes. Was he racist? Yes. Was he apart of black lives matter? NO
Neither of these men associated themselves with black lives matter. They were militant, which black lives matter is not. Did you even read up about it further than those articles? Yes, blm leaders were sued, but they werent acts from people who even associated themselves with black lives matter. Don't try to pin acts of two individuals onto an entire movement of people that neither side associated with.
@RustyFapwagon, It doesn't matter it if it's "just a few", these are people taking other people's lives. If we can try and stop that, then we should.
Gun control is not punishing responsible gun owners. Read my goddamn points. Im am NOT saying we should take guns away from law abiding citizens, we should make it so the mentally ill and felons cannot get their hands on guns so easily. The only reason so many people get guns illegally is because it's easy to. Even the areas with the strictest gun laws have neighboring states that have very loose ones. But if all states had stricter control, not as many could get their hands on them as easily. The black market pricing would go up and it wouldn't be as cheap to buy for those who obtain them illegally. It would still allow law abiding citizens to get guns while also keeping the non-law abiding ones from getting them. Is it really that bad that I want law abiding citizens to keep their guns,and others not to?
@RustyFapwagon, Also using the logic of "telling someone they can't own something becauae someone else did something is wrong" is nuts. Why not make bazookas legal? Or tanks? Or drugs? Why not make everything legal??? Yeah, it sucks that some people ruin it for the rest of us, but that's life. You need to give up some freedom for security. If it werent for regulations and laws, this country would be a total shjt show.
@Formless, again I agree with that. The issue is that we really don't want the government to regulate our fail safe as a country. End of the day that's what the 2nd Amendment is.
@K1lgore, lol wait did you just say that the group that literally riots and shuts down cities isn't militant? Are you retarded? BLM absolutely sparked both and one even happened at their protest.
Can't be stopped. Their will always be bad people. Take the mudslimes in Europe blowing through people with trucks since they can't get guns. Gonna happen anyway and since it's such a small percent of the crimes it really isn't something we can change.
You again fail to understand what "gun control" is. Felons can't get guns. Again do you want to make that more illegal? Because that's the only thing that wouldn't penalize and hurt the legal gun owner. We don't need more control. We really don't have much a problem. We need to raise the penalties on prohibited possessors and the gun crime will decrease as it has before. Your looking at the splinter in one eye when there is a 2x4 in the other and that's dumb.
Bazookas should be legal and are as an NFA destructive device. Tanks are legal.
@RustyFapwagon, but I wouldn't expect someone with as little knowledge on gun ownership in america to know any of that.
What would you purpose that doesn't hurt the legal gun owner in some way? Bet anything you say alters what they can own or how they can get it.
@RustyFapwagon, furthermore we have this right to defend us from the government. It's our failsafe. I don't understand why you want the government to regulate something thats supposed to defend us from them.
@RustyFapwagon, our failsafe is outdated we either need a properly armed Militia that operates the way the fathers intended or to accept our fail safe wouldn't stand up to modern military technology
@Formless, Militia is separate from the people. And our failsafe most definitely would stand up to modern tech. Not to mention the second strikes on American civilians happen tons of the military are going to start deserting. Maybe your comfortable rolling over on your back but I'm not and I shouldn't have to because people are scared and don't understand it.
@RustyFapwagon, BLM sparked neither, jjst admit you were wrong, ad that you didn't do enough research on tje topic so you pinned it to the blm movement to make them look bad. neither side associated themselves with the other, the killers themselves made that clear. You had a good argument that some of the blm protests have turned into riots which is awful, I agreed with you on that a while back. But you totally iied and said that the blm plans attacks on police while it was actually two individuals who themselves said they didn't affiliate with blm.
Just because violent people will be violent it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prevent it at all. You're also not getting my point on gun control and I can't tell if you're ignoring it or just not getting it and im sick of repeating it, so I'll state it once more (continued in next comment)
@RustyFapwagon, It is way too easy to get a gun in the U.S both legally and illegally. The harder it is to get one legally, the harder it would be to get one illegally, helping with gun crime. Those who are law abiding and mentally stable should 100% be allowed to have a gun, but not anyone who can't meet these simple qualifications. And yeah, they should boost up punishment for illegals.
There's a reason why things are regulated. Some freedoms need to be sacrificed for security and deadly and extremely destructive weapons such as bazookas and grenades are illegal for a reason. You're crazy if you think all that shjt should be legal.
On your last reply to Formless: Even if 9/10s of our military deserted, we'd still have no chance. The tech is extremely advanced with things such as drones and we'd all get wiped out if they wanted it. Back in the day when the amendment was made, it made sense. Then, it was all just fvcking muskets and citizens would actually have a chance.
@RustyFapwagon, Also, the fathers 100% intended for us to have an actual trained malitia, that's what guns were for. Not for self or in-home protection. It's one of the most clearly written amendments in the entire constitution. So without a proper malitia, we'd have no chance and the founding fathers new that as well
@K1lgore, kkk was democrat.
@Crad1989, That's correct, but back then republicans were libs and democrats were cons. The KKK switched to republican when the republicans became conservative and democrats became liberal. I wasn't talking about parties anyway, I was talking about liberals and conservatives.
@Medic135, The modern conservatives are no better. What about all that stuff that happened in Charlottesville the last couple of days? (If you didn't hear it or see about it, is was a group of white supremacists whonhad a huge protest and they attacked counter protesters.
Listen, I was kinda in the wrong for pointing the finger, so can we both just admit there are groups in both sides that suck?
@K1lgore, ANTIFA? The retard who shot Scalise? Lee Harvey Oswald? Etc
@K1lgore, yes. Yes we can. I'm sorry for shouting and I want to stay
@K1lgore, ANTIFA? The retard who shot Scalise? BLM? Etc
@K1lgore, I'm fairly certain the kkk was started by democrats js.
@Diskum, just gonna take this one so K1lgore doesn't have to explain again. He is talking about liberals and conservatives, NOT democrats and republicans.
For decades leading up to the civil rights movement, the southern states were known as "yellow dog democrats," because they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote republican. Over time, democratic leadership became more liberal and concerned about civil rights, while republican leadership became more conservative. This is when the south turned republican, and these are the party ideologies we now see. When the KKK was formed, the democrats were conservatives.
Yeah all the kids from sandy hook know it
Had to give up my scar-16s. Feels bad man :(
Does anyone know who said this or is it just some unknown quote?
Both the left and the right commit acts of violence. The types of violence are just much different. The right attacks more figure heads while the left attacks more on the individual level. Be respectful of others, different opinions have never been a bad thing it's what made this country great in the first place. Just because you don't like guns, drugs, media, etc. Thar doesn't mean other's should conform to you beliefs and ban the things you hate. At the end of the day we are all Americans and let's keep that at the heart of our debates. 🇺🇸
@AN AMERICAN, unfortunately, people feel that if you're not on their side, you're the enemy. The political rhetoric has gotten so bad that either side has been making pretty lofty and scary attacks (hanging Hillary Clinton, or holding up a bloodied Trump head). It's disgusting that we have to become almost like the Revolutionary peasants wanting to literally see the other side DIE.
@SchroedingerPussPuss, we just need a good enemy again. Nothing like a World war to unify the country. Its always been one of our strengths. The ability to set aside our differences to defeat a common enemy.