Can we just agree that they’re both weapons/tools with the potential to be dangerous if not properly handled?
@pirey, pretty left liberal here. please dont kill me.
i think we’d all agree with that, hell i own an AR. problem is they’re hella dangerous, so i just wanna keep em away from the hella dangerous folks. background checks and no gun show loophole.
@Hoban Washburne, the "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. If you buy from a dealer at a gun show, you are required by law to fill out a 4473 and have a background check. As for purchasing from an individual, refer to state and local laws. Some states, like California, require you go to a dealer and fill out the 4473 and have a background check to transfer it to the new owner. Gun shows just have a lot of sellers and buyers in one spot, the laws are still followed.
@Azyoulikeit, mostly correct. theres room within the infrastructure of a gunshow for buying selling and trading between non-FFLs. as a guy from a pretty blue state trying to buy an AR lower, i became fairly well versed in the particulars. non-ffls can legally ‘trade’ guns or swap for cash in gun shows and flea markets in states like vermont and the like with 0 paperwork entirely within the confines of the law. almost bought a 12 gauge that way in VT myself
@Hoban Washburne, I said follow the state and local laws on private sales. Here in Oklahoma, I just have to believe the person I'm selling to meets the same requirements as I do. So, it's not a loophole, it's how the law is written. I don't have to be at a gun show to buy or sell so it's not a "gun show loophole".
@Azyoulikeit, well now we’re just arguing semantics. in my mind when your ‘belief’ enters into the equation its not right. you may be extremely responsible and prudent, but the fvcker down the street who wants to unload an AR for 800 bucks to anyone who’ll take it, and can do so legally, is the guy that im concerned about. in my mind if you want a gun you should A, know how to use it, and B, not have a history of criminal violence. and ive been through the NRA ohio course and its a freaking joke. my 6 year old knows more about guns than those guys bothered to teach. granted each class is different, but the bar for knowledge in states that have a bar at all is hilariously low. dont drive if you dont have a license, dont own a gun if you dont know how to safely use a gun
@Hoban Washburne, the bar is probably low because keeping and bearing arms is a right, driving a car is not. Now, you should get trained and know when and where you can legally USE it but for mere ownership, the bar should be incredibly low because it's a right secured by the 2nd amendment.
@Hoban Washburne, while that's worth its own discussion, non of the mass shootings were done with guns bought using those loop holes, so it wouldn't solve anything other than it sounds good.
@Azyoulikeit, come now. every right comes with a burden of responsibility. if you want to vote you have to register, go out, be informed. thats your responsibility. if you want to speak freely you’re responsible for filtering what you say. you cant scream fire in a crowded theater. if you want a gun, its your responsibility to know how to own it safely. and the bar should be way higher. im tired of seeing stories on the news of kids shooting themselves or each other at 5 and 6 years old cuz daddy kept his pistol in the nightstand or rifle in the closet like a freaking asshat
@Hoban Washburne, I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk but you have to know arguing gun rights over the internet won't do anything... plus this whole app is pretty far right. Nothing wrong with that but you aren't going to convince many people because of it.
@Hoban Washburne, I welcome and would love to finally see some informed voters, maybe there should be a test before people can vote. I'll yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is one. I agree, you should secure your firearms away from those that shouldn't have them. So, why should a parent that fails to protect their children, by not properly securing a firearm, affect my ability to purchase my next firearm? After all, I've got a carry permit. That means, my county sheriff, OSBI and the FBI all ran my fingerprints and did a background check and found nothing.
@Hoban Washburne, had to downvote for the gun show loophole reference.
@Azyoulikeit, exactly "arms" no where does it say your entitled to the most deadly weapons possible. Stop hiding behind text written hundreds of years ago and evolve with the times like the laws need to
@AWildMagikarp, okay. I'll pretend the second amendment doesn't exist for a moment. I still have the 9th amendment which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Also the 10th amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, since the body of the Constitution doesn't state the Federal government has the right to restrict my AR 15 purchase, I can own one.
@Azyoulikeit, the fact that no one seems to have a problem with that concerns me. Not you having it specifically, just anyone.
@Oujosh29, of course. Everybody knows that guns are never used to murder people outside of a mass shooting.
@Hoban Washburne, I'm only commenting on the "free speech but can't yell fire in a crowded building."
The reason why it is not protected speech is because it is a dangerous and false claim for action. It is more along the lines of saying "go kill that man over there." By saying that, one can be held as an accomplice to murder. Free Speech is more intended to be like Free Press where you can criticize someone or something without governmental punishment.
@Azyoulikeit, his point still stands that laws can be changed. The second amendment can very well be updated or replaced by congress.
I would be ecstatic if we got an amendment that set comprehensive national requirements for gun ownership, required records and background checks on any sale, trade, or gift of a gun, set an age requirement for (at least) larger and harder-to-control guns, and didn't permit gun ownership for anyone convicted of a violent crime, with a history of depression, or who is taking medication that may cause depression.
I don't think any of those requests are unreasonable.
@AWildMagikarp, I believe there are people that shouldn't have guns. I'd be an idiot not to, but the laws only affect the law abiding. So, making it harder for me to buy doesn't slow down the rate at which violent crimes occur. I'd much prefer people that are legally able to purchase and carry a gun do so, there would hopefully be fewer victims of violent crime and fewer violent offenders. Obviously, I want responsible gun owners so, purchase one that fits your needs, then learn how and when to use it, learn how to care, maintain and secure it. After all, there are repercussions should you fail in any of these areas, some relatively minor, such as rust due to improper care and storage, to major life altering/ending events.
@Depressed Panda, we already have laws on the books for most of that. 18 to purchase a rifle, shotgun or their ammo. 21 for pistols and their ammo. Felons, as well as those that have been adjudicated mentally defective, committed to a mental institution, subject to a court order for harassing, stalking their child or intimate partner, or intimate partners child, dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and the list goes on, cannot legally purchase a firearm of any kind. So, the lack of enforcement of current laws is part of the problem.
@Depressed Panda, thats not even a point. Of course guns are used outside of mass shootings, and almost none of them were bought using "loop holes".
@Oujosh29, do you have any statistics to support that claim?
@Hoban Washburne, no, no that's not how that works. That's not how any of it works.
@AWildMagikarp, so... what are the most deadliest of weapons called? I do recall a nuclear ARMS race being the thing behind the cold war...
@Blasphemy is Fun, no harm done man. i like arguing on this app. i live in CT. everyone thinks like i do. i like this community cuz yall think differently. i may think you’re batshjt, but frankly i think the worst thing you can do for your own intelligence is turn away from a good argument with a stranger, especially one that thinks differently than you do. and memes and comedy in general tend to be based on social contention. not this one necessarily, but all of the gender and autism, trump and gun memes. i think people are a bit quick to discredit just how influential comedy can be. so its worth a discussion, even if i get shouted down, makes me rethink and justify my stance. otherwise id be a dogmatic prick shouting at a sounding board of liberals. i also think its helpful to remind folk that not all liberals are uptight fvcks, just like how not all conservatives are cornfed cousin fvckers
@Depressed Panda, at what point does changing the original amendment start infringing on citizens rights though? There is a point where you begin fascism, currently written that point is "any". This was done intentionally. The constitution wasn't written haphazardly by uneducated rednecks cuz they saw a cool action movie. It was written by people who intended a long lasting, free society. They had seen what tiny concessions had empowered the government to do. We have allowed a series of small concessions, and large ones, for comfort or guilt and it has resulted in a bloated and overcomplicated theft of freedoms and rights thinly veiled under the title of "government". Not just rights mind you, but the fruits of my labor. I am robbed by the government that strips my freedom in every paycheck, despite it being my life I am exchanging for money. The government only complicates and it NEVER solves the problem
@Depressed Panda, that pretty much sums up current law. The idea that Mad Michael and Insane Ivan can get their hands on guns is preposterous. Most shooters have been registered owners with no indication of suddenly losing their minds. Those few that didn't own guns obtained them from a friend or family member. No legislation can prevent that. None. A friend or family member can have their weapons stolen. Laws are for the lawful, those who don't follow laws won't be stopped by a new law.
@crustybucket, First off, it doesn't look like we're likely to find common ground, as you seem to be heavily opposed to government, but here's what I think:
1) While removing a right that was once given shouldn't be done lightly, it has been done before. The patriot act, libel/"causing a panic", and felons losing voting rights are all examples of right that are taken from people, so this is not without precedent. I would argue as well that restricting gun rights is much less bad than the patriot act.
2) Laws need to be updated sometimes. We're just now adapting laws relating to searches to the digital age and the same thing needs to happen with guns.
3) Todays guns are not the weapons of the 18th century. They're more powerful, much faster, more accurate, easier to reload, mass produced, and distributed everywhere. Gun laws need to accommodate that change.
4) The basis of why we need free access to guns is usually said to be so that we can rise up if...
...the government becomes oppressive, but it won't help. If the US army goes to war with gun owners nationwide, the army will win. For one, gun owners are spread out and disorganized and two, historically, militias are pretty incompetent and cowardly and they usually lose to trained soldiers.
There's my argument. If you reply I'll read it, but I probably won't continue this conversation.
@Hoban Washburne, yeah I love a good debate. Also to be clear I live in Western Washington State and I'm a democrat. I agree with most of the stuff you said.
@Hoban Washburne, you just used an example of young kids shooting each other to make a law that has to do with mass shootings. Your logic is flawed and you’re conflating the 2 situations and trying to use the same solution.
@Blasphemy is Fun, as someone who’s a moderate right, there are way more centers than there are right on this app. Trust me, I’m not even that far right and even I get berated. So many people on this app wanted Johnson to be president. That’s extremely center.
@Child Slapper, its not conflating the issues its correlating the two with a common source-issue. both the child scenario i described and mass shootings have their roots primarily in an overabundance of guns, an over-saturation of improper gun use in media, and an over liberality in gun use ingrained in our society
@Hoban Washburne, no, it’s called bad parenting for the children. The two don’t have similar solutions. You sound just like the media, who over-generalize to get their agenda across. Their end goal is for the government to control every aspect of life. Once the guns are gone, there’s no way to protect ourselves from tyranny. Rather than removing the AR guns, let’s start by banning handguns in Chicago, since more people die in Chicago handgun shootings a year than in mass murders. But that won’t happen, because leftists want poverty and destruction.
@Child Slapper, buddy. i hate to shatter your perception of the world but the US military has nukes, tomahawk cruise missiles, .50 cals, automatic grenade launchers mounted to armored humvees, not to mention a massive cache of guns far more deadly than any that exist on the free market. if you think your AR can protect you from tyranny you’re about 150 yrs too late. and you’re right, you caught me, as a liberal im secretly a satist bent on the destruction of your way of life. i drink the blood of babies, ya figured it out. does demonizing and dehumanizing your opposition make it easier for you to hate?
@Child Slapper, do you actually believe that liberals are evil? Or are you just being an @sshole?
@Depressed Panda, I actually know that the leftist politicians are trying to grow the government and have them control our everyday lives. That’s why the media loved the North Korean display! Dystopian robots! That’s their true desire :)
1) Trump (a republican) is the one trying to put on a military parade.
2) Liberals believe in democracy, not authoritarianism.
3) Liberals want people to have power over companies (for example: through unions) whereas republicans would prefer companies to continue with no oversight.
4) Liberals most of all want to raise the minimum standard of living. Guarantee that everyone can have a job, can afford food and medicine, has a place to live, and can do something they enjoy.
Liberals are not a force of evil, just people who think the way to improve the lives of people is different from what republicans think it is. Don't just dismiss liberal arguments by assuming we're all evil. Maybe consider the point of what liberals want.
1) Trump is not a Republican. He is an embarrassment.
2) Leftists (not liberals) claim democracy, but are continually trying to put through socialist/communist policies
3) Unions are either government controlled organizations or ones that cause chaos because of inexperienced leaders. Unions are the reasons why terrible teachers that have been at a school for decades can’t be fired for inadequacy.
4) most liberals see people who get paid more and assume they screwed someone over to get it. In actuality, it’s they that create more jobs
The liberals aren’t evil, just the Leftist government and media that they listen to. I know what they want because all my friends are liberals, as is my whole household. I was a liberal my whole life. But I like to study. I’m not very conservative, but I pay attention. I’m always willing to hear others and consider my own opinions. That’s what’s important.
1) Socialism means businesses are regulated by the community. Communism means all businesses are owned by the government and the government decides how much everyone gets paid. They are not the same and most liberals do not support communism.
2) Socialism is not mutually exclusive with democracy. People vote to decide who participates in government and government regulates business.
3) Unions are the reason why minimum wage, health and safety requirements, and reasonable working hours exist. It is the right of workers to collectively bargain for better working conditions. Some may protect people who don't deserve it, but they do a massive amount of good for workers who have little personal control over the company they work for.
4) Are you referring to tenure?
5) Thats not even close to anything I said. I'm talking about standards of living for the impoverished, you're talking about (I presume) why the rich are taxed more.
@Depressed Panda, 1) community regulation doesn’t end up working, which is why government exists in the first place. Same end result. Both end in major poverty and no one wanting to do harder jobs.
2) USA is not a democracy, where everyone’s votes matter. It is a democratic Republic, which means the people we elect make the decisions. That is how the US functions, and how it should stay
3) Unions are the reason there are $15 minimum wages. And when wages go up, so do the product prices. Duh. It’s just going to keep inflating and people are going to always say they don’t have enough.
4) yes, tenure is a major stain on schools and should be eradicated. Hire by performance, not seniority.
5)and I never said liberals are evil; they just keep getting altered and extremely biased news from sources controlled by the left; who do have evil outcomes. I in no way agree with most of what Ben Shapiro says, but he helps open eyes to the evil of the left.
I also wouldn’t mind if you recommend
How come it seems no one has realized that it's just a $49 propane burner that you can get at any hardware store? There was even some lawmaker talking about trying to get it banned.
@HSA, right just buy the sweet ass airsoft gun they used then modify it
@HSA, everyone realizes it aside from that lawmaker and people who haven’t actually seen it, they just jump on the bandwagon of “fire is bad, we should ban it!”
I’ve got a great idea - how about we all agree not to talk about gun control/gun laws, or what the founding fathers may or may not have intended on here?
It’s a contentious topic and tends to spoil the otherwise lighthearted atmosphere of the community.
That's not what the founding fathers had in mind! Probably because they were total SQUARES
@StiffWood, they need to get with the trapezoidial times