Study for like, 30 seconds before ruunin yer mouth on the news.
AR-15s have technically been around since WWI so... Yeah... Mate how about you look up stuff for your pretty speeches before you look douchy.
Also, no. I'm not above criticizing a survivor of a school shooting. I'm not a bad person for pointing out sh1tty arguments that make people look bad.
They can take away our guns but they can't take away our rights to free speech. Until they can because we don't have any guns :(
To those saying that he never said it, a picture on funny pics told me he did why would I bother looking it up? It's not like I look douchy now or anything right? →_→
Sometimes I just gotta take a long drink of whoopass and practice what I preach... mehhhh
@Mhael, once it’s clear rights can be taken away whenever someone cries about it, then anything can be taken
@Mhael, especially when one considers that he wasn't there during the shooting.
@Finndogs, he was there. But he never said this.
@Mhael, okay I have nothing against anything you said except for the last bit. Do you think that any amount of citizens with guns could stop the U.S military if they wanted to take away our right to free speech? I'm not trying to be rude and if I am I'm sorry but could you take me through your thought process?
@Mhael, I find it interesting how upset they are at the clear backpacks about how it’s infringing on their right to privacy. People like this are the root of the problem.
Every tyrant who has lived has believed in freedom for himself.
People willing to take away others rights. “We’ll decide what liberty we should have and we’ll decide what liberty you should have.” Freedom for themselves, but for no one else.
@Gunrilla, no not at all. I just think guns are fun and I'm upset that they might take them away. Saying they will do this or that because we have or don't have guns is just me poking fun at a stupid argument xD. I mean the government is already in your net, in your phone, on your calls etc. Coming into the age of advanced communications we've already forfeited most of our rights anyways. XD
Let me be clear on where I stand if you're confused, I'm a very strong supporter of second amendment rights because I enjoy guns, I shoot as a hobby and for sport. I do however recognize that weapons are not just toys, but they are a huge responsibility and they can be dangerous tools in the wrong hands. So while I strictly oppose anyone who would like to ban weapons, I am also vocal supporter of regulating the sales and transactions of weapons. Im for stronger background checks and I'm definitely for psychiatric evaulations on weapon purchases.
@Richard Cypher, yeah, that bit was funny af xD. They ask for better security measures, then complain when the security measures infringe on them.
@Mhael, okay, that cleared up alot and I agree with you on most if not all of the major points you made. It's just that when you said that I imagined some redneck standing on his porch with his shotgun saying "try to take my rights, I dare ya!" And then just a tank rolling up to his house.
@Gunrilla, *goes full Dale Gribble mode munching bacon and shooting guns*
You ain't takin aweey maa rayiights
@Gunrilla, “well they would probably beat us so we should just give up and roll over.” that’s a terrible mindset to have
@Richard Cypher, what could the average gun owning citizen do in a fight against the government if they really wanted to harm/kill them? I'm curious (sorry if I'm being rude)
@Gunrilla, And what says that the military will fight for a tyrannical government and not for the people of which they swore to protect? Soldiers are still citizens.
@Sir LancesALot, good point
@Gunrilla, Only higher-ups and some kill happy soldiers would stay and fight for the government.
@Sir LancesALot, I feel like the government could kill alot of people with not that many people through life drones or AI or something along the lines of that but that's just a theroy on my part
@Gunrilla, considering most of the military personnel would likely defect, yes.
@Gunrilla, The soldiers would know how to handle drones. Plus, there will be soldiers who are able to take drones back with them. Also, here's a fun thing. All bases are predominantly normal soldiers (not higher ups). They would easily be able to take control of the base, and therefore the drones. Even the Pentagon would probably be civilian controlled. Also, the secret service is only trained to protect the president, they never swear on an oath to. The secret service, like the military, is there to protect the nation. So even if only one secret service agent stays on the citizen side, that's eyes on the president and other high-up politicians. If the entire secret service decides to stay loyal to the country, not the government, it's an easy civilian victory.
@Mhael, ironic that you say that he should look stuff up, considering that he never actually said this.
@Gunrilla, i think that question has been answered repeatedly during our exploits in the middle east.
@Mhael, so your a supporter of current gun laws? Because there is back round checks. And rules and regulations.
@BlazingBowman, there are no serious psychiatric evaluation done during background checks. And additionally, gun sales made at gun shows and in private transactions require no background checks. So, it's not current gun law, it's more like "current guideline that is easily circumvented". I'm definitely a supporter of stronger enforcement of current laws, and of closing the loopholes that allow some people to make weapon purchases without checks. Plus, there seriously needs to be some actual psychiatric evaluation before you're permitted to buy weapons... Do you not think the state of mind of a person should be checked when they are purchasing a gun?
@Mhael, please go on about how the government needs to be involved in private transaftions. Hey id like to sell this lawnchair at my garage sale but i have to call the government beurue of private property sales in order to get permission. Which is at a minimum 30 days ( due to beurocratic bloat). Is that what you want. And no i dont think psycological evaluations would proove useful to stoping mass shooters. The government cant even follow through with current gun laws. Adding a mandatory visit to a therapist in order to get a gun just adds to unnecrssary bloat to the system. Btw it would also be very easy to manipulate and pass even if you wanted to go kill a bunch of people. You think all these things will help. You come up with all these idea without actrually thinking through the implementation of these laws.
@Gunrilla, Gorilla warfare. Worked for founding our country. Worked for the Vietnamese. Working in the Middle East. How long have we been fighting the Taliban/ISIS/etc? You use your minor weapons to take your foes bigger weapons. That’s how we have ISIS and the Taliban using our M1 tanks, Armored vehicles, and other weapons. Also, one of Russia’s greatest foes was a Fin with a hunting rifle.
@BlazingBowman, not at all? Literally all the arguments you just made are straw man arguments, and on top of that, the analogies you just made are horridly flawed.
IDK if you're trolling based on your English or if you genuinely believe the crap you just said.... There are literally too many flaws and straw man attacks in everything you just said that I couldn't possibly address them all on funny pics...
@Richard Cypher, Exactly. That's my main issue with all this. Whether I agree with people having guns or not, taking away a fundamental right that's been around since the beginning of the country... It's a slippery slope. If we can take away one, we can take them all away. It's scary.
@Mhael, let me ask you something because clearly you havent thought this through. How would you monitor private transactions between random citizens. How are you gonna stop farmer john from selling his shotgun to cousin peter down the road? Ok lets start with that since you clearly are a genius.
@BlazingBowman, guns come with registration numbers. Just like cars? They literally have a system to monitor car sales in every single developed nation, and you're telling me the same concept can't be applied to weapon sales?
Every gun legally made has a registration number/serial number. When you buy it legally it can easily be registered in a database under your ID. Until you submit an ownership transfer, that gun remains yours and yours only. They do this with cars and you're saying they can't do it with guns? (there are a lot more cars than guns buddy).....
@Mhael, really an ownership transfer you say. Still havent answered my question how are you gonna stop farmer john from selling his rifle to cousin peter. How will you know a crime has been commited. You gonna do random inspections of peoples houses. How do you know farmer pete didnt lose his shotgun?
@BlazingBowman, literally the exact same way that police deal with stolen and missing cars? It's not a tough link to make, I already laid out a one to one mapping from car title transfer to gun title transfer.
Let me simplify it to you. Take the regulations we have on monitoring cars and car sales, and apply them to guns.
Can I stop someone from giving his car to someone else? No. But if they give it to someone who is an alcoholic or has a history of DUI, they are liable in court of that guy fvcks up.
Same with guns. You wont be so loose handed with handing out your weapon when you know that weapon is registered to your name and easily tracked back to you. Only an idiot would do that, and if they do, why shouldn't they face punishment for it?
@Mhael, You know that any dealer making a sale anywhere has to perform a background check, whether they’re at their shop or a gun show. The only “loophole” is for private citizens in the 3/5ths of states that haven’t put the requirement for a background check on private sales.
@Commandshark, keyword here is "Any dealer".
But a private seller at a gunshop mostly doesn't need to perform background checks in the majority of states. Let's not fool ourselves, it's obvious as day that the sh1t that happens at gun shows is sketchy AF..... I've been to a few and I've seen my fair share.
@Mhael, he never said it
@Mhael, Any dealer with an FFL has to, by law, go make a background check for any sale they make. You don’t get private sellers in gun shops, just like you don’t open a hamburger stand inside a McDonalds. I’ve never seen anything sketchy as gun shows, but I’m also in a place where gun sales require an FFL, private or not. I did mention the 3/5ths of states that don’t need to perform a background check for private sales. Also, private sales to a felon or someone who shouldn’t have a gun are still illegal. The felon can’t legally own a gun, been that way since 1968.
@Mhael, heres the answer. You cant tell if a crime has been commited until someone reports it. And what you are advocating for is to make it an illegal and punishable offense for selling your private property. You are advocating to make it the responsibility for a private citizen to run personal backround checks on private sales, and you advocate for a creation of a new government agency that would be created in order to oversee these private transactions. ( as if we werent already 3 trillion dollars in debt) this is your proposal laid out on what would necesarily have to happen in order to monitor transactions between private citizens. That isnt a strawman. Ok the system isnt doing its job already and able to do its job properly and the solution you seem to be proposing is to add more of a burden to the system.
@Mhael, oh wow your advocating for the seller to be responsible for the actions of the person buying the gun. Thats a whole new level of stupid. And selling a product is far different from being stolen. The fact that you made the comparison in kind of embarassing for you.
@Gunrilla, do you really think the entire us military would do this? I think if the powers at be tried a takeover it would fail. Pretty sure they know too. Hence letting the people forfeit their rights because of stuff like this, rather than taking them by force.
@Commandshark, if I show up at a gun show, set up a booth and display weapons, and you approach me and request to buy any as a private transaction afterwards, there are no laws governing that save for what you mentioned about felons. I'm mostly worried about the unstables though.
@Mhael, i mean jeez i hope the guy who bought my kitchen knives doesnt go out and stab someone. That might mean ill get a 10 year sentence. Like do you even hear yourself.
@BlazingBowman, saying something is "stupid" and is "embarrassing" literally without providing any reason whatsoever is pretty useless as an argument. I'll give you more time though, you sound like you really need time to get your gears running. No problemo, come back when you have a real argument that isn't just plainly flawed or straw manning.
@BlazingBowman, again you are just slinging straw man arguments.....
@Mhael, can't believe I have to explain why getting your car stolen would attract the attention of the police where as selling your car would not.
@Mhael, ok when you mentioned the gun show thing I knew you were full of shït And private sales require a third party that is a vendor, to be a legit sale.
As a person who has purchased fore arms at a gun show I can assure you they do the whole 9.
@BlazingBowman, the fact that you think that's what I was referring to is the issue here buddy.
Please read carefully again what I wrote.
@Caine, I literally provided a link that explains how to execute the loophole thoroughly.... And you can easily google many examples of how to do it... Just because YOU went about it the legitimate way that doesn't mean others do the same. The world doesn't revolve around you, and just because you are an honest actor that doesn't mean others will be too...
I appreciate that you follow the law but there are soo many cases that have proven that you can easily circumvent it at gunshows... You literally just gotta look it up...
@Mhael, " can I stop someone else from giving his car to someone else? No. But if they give it to someone who is an alcoholic or has a history of DUI, they are liable in court if that guy fvck up" yeah sounds to me like you advocate being punished for that guys mistake. So if we transfer as follows the car is the gun. And the alcoholic is the guy your selling it to. Your saying if you sell the gun to the alcoholic and he goes on a shooting spree you will be held responsible. Which is not true. And should never be true. But nice try man. Ok so now that I've thoroughly defeated you on this position as you have just advocated to punish sellers for the actions of the buyers lets move on to the mandatory psychiatric evaluation. My position on it is It's easy to trick. And would add unnecessary burden to a system that doesnt work at its current capacity. But I'd like to hear how you think a psychiatric evaluation would go. So I don't " straw man" you again.
@Caine, no I don't really believe that would happen at all, my very original problem was that some dude said that if they take away our guns they can then take away our right to free speech and me back then imagined a hilly billy on his porch with his shot gunbeing like "try to take my guns, I dare ya" trying to fight the us military. I now have been informed that that picture in my head was wrong
@Mhael, you realize links don't work in funny pics right?
@Gunrilla, if the government ever turned on the citizens a huge portion of the army would side with the people.
@BlazingBowman, Jesus Christ bud. The fact that you think you defeated anything with that is laughable..... I'd actually laugh if I didn't feel so bad that you can't put two and two together and form a coherent thought to analyze the idea suggested rather than vehemently deny it based on your misunderstanding....
I'm not gonna waste my time with you anymore. Take it as a win or whatever, rejoice in your stupidity, but Jesus Christ stop messaging me, you're hopeless....
@TR8R, I realize that now yeah
@Mhael, it's sad that you think that man it really is. If you want to end this discussion then fine. I'll be the adult and walk away. And you know what I won't even insult you like you've been doing this entire time man. Next time be a bit more civil.
@BlazingBowman, you know what. You're right. I'm sorry, it just got a little frustrating for me. I felt like you were misunderstanding what I was saying and at the same time being condescending so I lashed out. I shouldn't have and I apologize for that. Regardless, I still don't feel like arguing with you. Apologies for offending you, I was wrong to do so.
@Mhael, look man I was a bit of a d!ck to. Let's leave it at this while it's nice and pretty ok.
@BlazingBowman, Yup. Have a good day sir! (or night I guess :P it's pretty late)
@Mhael, wait but wasn’t the German army near the end of WW2 the first to use assault rifles?
@Gunrilla, You ever hear of guerilla warefare? Why did the U.S. lose to rice farmers in Vietnam? It is a lot harder to stop an insurgency when it is under your nose. Not to include civil war divides a military.
@Ultramatt, While AR 15s didn't formally exist till the 1950s, they were based on AR 10 and that was based on AR 5, which was an Armalite weapon that modified the rifling and loading on old ass 1890s colt rifles used in WW1.
Edit: that's why I said "technically" in the original post
@Mhael, That would still be illegal to buy the guns as a private sale afterwards if the seller is an FFL dealer and the guns are through their shop. That’s illegal, not a loophole. If you’re a random person opening your stand with guns you alone own in a state that allows private transactions without background checks, THEN it is legal.
@Mhael, so this comment section is a mess, but wasn’t the AR-15 designed in the 1950’s? Like assault rifles were around in a sense but that model is fairly recent
@Cabbage Salesman, yeah, I responded to that like two posts ago. The comment section is always a mess when it's a hot debated issue xD.
@Mhael, quick point about your car registration idea. First, guns arent registered, so you'd have to create a national registry which would be incredibly hard to do politically. Second, its on the buyer to register the car/gun, its not the responsibility of the seller. So no, if I sold my car I wouldnt be liabile for anything the buyer does with the car. Same with guns, the buyer could just not register.
@Finndogs, shhhh don’t let anyone let that secret out.
@Mhael, Although your argument is flawless on paper, I am going to use your car analogy to explain something, that whole system doesn't work. Missing titles, stolen cars. Whether it is as simple as a VIN missing or a cobbled together franken-car. Registration is civilian enforced, and cost money at that. A lot of people drive out of date or unregistered cars... Those are the ones that slip through the cracks. Just like illegally aquired guns will (almost) always been the ones committing crimes. You have a number for most guns, however it is a broad industry. That type 99 Arisaka rifle your grandad ripped off of someone's corpse? It is not going to be registered. When laws are made for stricter regulations, it may prevent twenty lifes from being at the cost of making millions felons. Potentially ruining harmless citizens life's. They might not even know they are breaking the law but more often or not they still get prosecuted. Life's will be taken, freedoms don't have to be.
@Cabbage Salesman, Assault rifles aren't a real type of gun. Semi automatic guns in a rifle caliber have been around since the great depression.
@Barry Dylan, oh. You know you're actually right. I didn't think of that (the monetary cost of enforcing it on the citizens I mean, plus I didn't think of how it can be abused/misused/misconstrued to cause harm rather than good). Good point, well caught.
@Mhael, Another point would be a cop won't see a unregistered gun driving down the freeway but I ran out of letters previously... It is nice to prove a point than butt heads for once, thank you for your time.
*builds a giant mobile gun and drives it down the freeway* xD
But yeah, I'm open to admitting im at fault or admitting that theee are flaws in my argument as long as I'm reasonably shown any. I don't argue for the sake of arguing, I'm arguing to both share and develop my opinion and perspective.
@Richard Cypher, well I mean wasn't slavery a right people whined about and they right was taken away? Not trying to fight just have a conversation.
@Gruncle Stan, Slavery was never a right in the US. Morally and legally speaking. As well as gun ownership is inheritly victimless. Slavery infringes on other people's rights.
@BlazingBowman, you have to do it for a car...
@Barry Dylan, fine, definition of legal right: a claim recognised and deliminated by law for the purpose of securing it. -merriam Webster. By law, slaves were there personal property of their owners in all southern States except louisiana.-www.crf.usa.org/black-history-month/slavery-in-the-american-south. So to say slavery was never a US right is false. As for gun ownership is inherently victimless where slavery infringes on others rights, that is definitely up for debate. They are not on the same caliber for sure, but if you are going to say I am wrong you better have solid evidence to back it up.
@Gruncle Stan, Simply owning a gun is the same thing as owning any other item. Owning a pencil doesn’t infringe on other’s rights, neither does owning a house. Now, if someone chooses to ILLEGALLY harm someone with the gun, that’s going further than purely owning the gun.
@Gruncle Stan, a "right" in this context is a constituonal right, and slavery was never a right. Just like owning a car isnt a right.
@Commandshark, can I own a grenade? Why not? the Constitution doesn't say I can own a gun specifically but that I can own arms. a Grenade is an arm is it not? does that infringe on others rights? how about a nuclear bomb in my basement. should I be allowed to have that? this is where your argument falters unless you think I should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb of course.
@Gruncle Stan, Some would make that argument, you’re technically not wrong. You could own cannons too
@Oujosh29, in this context we need to be specific in our wording while talking about such a sensitive topic. I'm just trying to study the pot not to be a turd, but to inspire others to question their own beliefs. I am a conservative who believes we should be able to conceal carry etc..., But I also think trying to argue from other points in view is very beneficial to both people arguing. It's how I molded my beliefs today.
@Gruncle Stan, Of course, you’re taking things to the absurd. A firearm is something that you have to specifically aim at what you’re going to shoot. A bomb, grenade, or especially nuke don’t need to be aimed. They destroy all that’s near them within their blast radius. That’s why they have been highly regulated. And owning those things still don’t hurt anyone, it is the use of them. That was my argument. If you can show me how owning them can cause people to die explicitly due to owning them (not due to someone killing someone to take them) then I will concede.
@Gruncle Stan, The Constitution is very careful about mentioning slavery for a couple reasons. Most States found it unlawful, however they needed the southern states to make a country that function so they "tip-toed" around the subject. It was never a right in the US. It was never in the bill of rights as a right. It says you own your property, but that was up for debate whether or not person or persons could be considered property, it always had been argued.
@Commandshark, isn't the point of the second amendment to not provide arms for civilians for self protection (although that is what it has morphed into), but to be able to combat tyrannical government need be, and assuming that's the case, don't we need access to those weapons in the first place. In my view, the second amendment has already been broken. The real question is how far are people willing to go to protect what's left of it.
@Gruncle Stan, Did you say gun ownership being inheritly victimless is up for debate, for clarification purposes.
@Gruncle Stan, We don’t need nukes to fight the government. If the government just nukes it’s own country, then all of the people within will be dead. That means no one to subjugate or have do the jobs that need to be done. A police state would be relied upon, and firearms within the populace would help deter that. Pipe bombs can still be made and so can IEDs, if they can be made in the Middle East. If the people tried to use a nuke against the tyrannical government, they’d be screwing themselves over too with fallout and the detonation of the device.
@Barry Dylan, as mentioned earlier under my previous comment, I mentioned the definition of legal right and provided an example of States that fulfilled that definition. It was at one point a right in a state that was part of the US, although it was never in the bill of rights for the reasons you mentioned. I didn't intend to argue about slavery, but rather just wanted to mention a right we had that was taken away. If you would like a different example, take the initialization if the draft, which told men that they needed to join the military need be. It was no longer their free choice.
@Gruncle Stan, If it isn't a right in all of the US. It isn't a US right, being my point.
@Barry Dylan, yes, referring to any shooting accident such as a kid accidentally shooting themselves. As soon as a single accident happened it was no longer considered victemless. It is important to realize however that I am not saying gun ownership is inherently dangerous either. Just that owning a gun is not 100% safe. Otherwise we would allow three year olds to play with loaded guns.
@Commandshark, correct, we don't need nukes, but we do need more than civilian-grade semi-auto guns correct? Do you agree?
@Gruncle Stan, In a theoretical, dystopian society in which it was a police state or moving rapidly and obviously towards one, we may need IEDs or something similar. But as I stated earlier, those can be made out of random junk if they can be made in places considered a lot poorer than here. I personally have shot full auto and believe it’s just wasting ammo unless you were in either a suppressing fire scenario or in a severe outnumbering.
@Gruncle Stan, You uh... Might need help with inheritly victimless... It just means an essential characteristic. So by saying "gun ownership" it means the simple process of possessing a gun. And inheritly victimless meaning that process in it's base form does not cause harm. Conditions and environments may vary, (being the causing factor) however a lone man on the moon with a 1911, does not leave a victim. Just like how pitbulls aren't inheritly dangerous.
@Commandshark, I too have shot a full auto gun and personally own three guns for myself, I mostly hunt but have gone to the range a few times. But I do think that as soon as you start limiting our ability to fight back, as you specifically said there are certain circumstances where full auto could be useful, the second amendment is being strained if not broken.
@Gruncle Stan, Talking from a strict reading of the second amendment, it has been broken. Shall not be infringed means it can’t be broken, encroached upon, or limited. I probably wouldn’t get a full auto gun myself, unless it was cheap enough (it is illegal in my state though). I would get a select fire that can do burst though, as that’s fun. Still, can’t get that in Commiefornia
@Barry Dylan, yes, misunderstanding.
@Gunrilla, in the scenario you describe above, where the military is taking away guns - it will never actually happen, precisely because the US population is so well armed. It would be so incredibly bloody that the order would never be given.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that he order is given. The military is not a single thing. It is made up of US citizens. Most of whom will not obey that order. They would fight against a tyrannical government. So now you have soldiers with their weapons and citizens with their weapons fighting the government, who doesn’t even like to kill enemies in a war lest they appear too strong. How strongly would they attack their own?
Edit: wow! Just realized how late I am to this thread.
@Mhael, And how would this stop people from manufacturing their own firearms? How would it stop the sale of black-market guns? The US and other countries have lost the drug war - a resounding defeat. But kinda expected since the CIA aided the drug runners (and is likely still involved). We can get coke and opium and every other drug we want from anywhere in the world. What would prevent nutters from also adding an illegal weapon to their illegal drug buy. And how can we trust a country that has secretly experimented on its own people (see “Unethical human experimentation in the United States” in Wiki for a start) with a gun registry? Registration is the first step to confiscation - just look what happened in Australia.
@Gruncle Stan, name a single thing that is “inherently safe” or “inherently dangerous”. An infant can easily choke on a marble, but couldn’t possibly load my 9mm, pull the slide back to chamber a round and pull the trigger. Therefore A marble is infinitely more dangerous than a 9mm. I would feel safer giving her my gun and a fully loaded magazine than I do giving her a single marble.
She couldn’t possibly use a bic lighter, but she could get under the sink and drink a chemical. So the lighter is safer than every day cleaning supplies.
@Mhael, Now if only more people saw it like this. Problem would be solved. Ive been saying for years that banning guns is not the solution. It would create a massive black market demand and cause more harm then good. However i am all for more regulation and back ground checks. And, most disagree, but i think in order to purchase a firearm, of any kind, you must go through some type of safety course. And guns should only be sold at designated gun stores. I dont think its right that i can roll into walmart and purchase a brand new shotgun and all the ammo i could ever need. But thats just my opinion.
@Richard Cypher, Normally, I’d say something in favour of gun control - but I just read in the news that a guy over here is being charged with a hate crime for having a gollywog doll in his window after some white last complained to the police. So yeah, you know what? You stick up for your freedoms.
@Richard Cypher, heh, clear like their backpacks.
@Richard Cypher, I America can change the second amendment if it wants to.
@Mhael, so that's not exactly true, we did not have ar 15 in ww1 or ww2 or korea, they were introduced in vietnam. That said those boys had Tommy guns m1s and BARS. Fighting against mg42s mp40s and stg44s. Lotta angry bois throwing hot lead there
@Sir LancesALot, “...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...”. The US military is not sworn to defend any single person or group of people or government (necessarily), but the ideologies as set forth in the Constitution. Orders from officers/leaders that can be deemed “unconstitutional” can be disobeyed. Which is why people argue so much about the amendments. I say good luck getting 2/3 of Congress to agree on anything.
@Nellybert , I saw something about that a few weeks ago. Wasn’t it some bar owner? And another one yesterday about a 78y/o man being arrested for suspicion of grievous bodily harm and suspected murder because he stabbed one of the burglars that broke into his house. The burglar had a screwdriver or something and the old man got it from him in a tussle and stabbed him, they ran off and later he died in the hospital. Is self defense not a thing? Cant imagine what else you are supposed to do when someone breaks into your home
@Richard Cypher, Not sure, there have been a few stories involving gollywogs and the “are they racist?” debate lately.
To be fair, the old guy killed someone - so I believe it’s standard practice to arrest them while they investigate (in case he was lying or whatever). He’s been released on bail and if everything stacks up he’ll be released without charge. Doing it this way just formalises it so there are requirements on the police about how they investigate and log everything. Our laws are a bit woolier than in the US - he’s legally covered for using ‘reasonable force’ rather than having a presumed right to use lethal force in self defence. They need to check that the death occurred as he says and that he didn’t go OTT. There have been several cases of people facing no charges for killing burglars, but a couple of years back a guy chased a burglar down the street and beat him to death with a bat, he got done because the jury agreed that he went beyond ‘reasonable’ levels there.
@Nellybert , I understand investigation reasons, but take the statement and investigate, not arrest the poor man. Arresting and investigating are very different things I think. Here at least, arrests show up on criminal records followed with whether it was a conviction or not. Just seems a little unfair to me.
@big freedom, inherently dangerous: shooting oneself in the head intentionally, drinking bleach, setting oneself on fire, etc... There is nothing inherently safe, proving my point. I would also give my small child a gun before a marble. What's your point.
@Richard Cypher, Arresting him gives him access to Legal Aid (free lawyer) and means everything is recorded in evidence, it also allows the police to take fingerprints & DNA samples for evidence. It’s just standard practice when someone gets killed by someone else - they’re doing it by the book.
An arrest without charge won’t show up on a standard background check.
@Sir LancesALot, And who decides when the government is now a tyranny?
@Gunrilla, well the US contains approximately 350 million firearms and several trillion rounds of ammo, enough to arm a militia larger than the US military. Beyond that, the US military swears an oath not to the government but to the constitution itself which would lead to large scale dissertion amongst troops. Also guerilla fighters in nations like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Pakistan, etc. Have fought our troops with worse supplies and armaments with a fairly high level of success. In reality it is far more feasible that the military could not win and would be reduced to committing war crimes against it's own population. Not to mention the fact that the militia would be spread out over a massive area which puts any invading military at a disadvantage against guerilla troops.
@Barry Dylan, In the founders’ writings, we the people have all the rights up to the point we affect others. We then formed government to voluntarily limit some rights for civil society (pay taxes, age to be a President, ceded interstate commerce to Feds, gave power of treaties to Feds, etc). The powers of the Federal Government were limited and defined. All powers not giving to the Feds were reserved to the states and the people. Unfortunately politicians made loopholes where there were none to justify their power grab and flip the system up-side down. The interstate commerce clause was the main one they used to take over our schools, farming, ranching, travel, etc. They have grossly perverted the original intent so that they can justify doing almost anything they want. People also lack understanding of our own system and now think if the right isn’t spelled out in the constitution we don’t have it except by the benevolence of the government (e.g., driving, piloting planes).
Unpopular opinion, but kids at school are not expecting to be shot at. Soldiers on d-day were a bit more prepared to be shot at.
@shnickelfritz, Nope. Read the D-day stories. They were young men who had never seen battle. Many has never been far from home before being drafted. They stormed the beaches without body armor. Machine gun fire, mortars, the German 88, mines ... watching friends get ripped to shreds. And still they kept going. My uncles and their friends were not prepared for that. How could they have be. None of them could accept they were going to their likely deaths.
@ZohmB, what?!? They were going into WAR! Of course they expected and were “a bit more prepared” to be shot at!
@ZohmB, can’t like this enough. RIP to those brave men.
This is the least violent period in human history. Generations before ours have been shot, stabbed, burned and bombed more times than any of us can wrap our heads around. School shootings are a tragedy because they're rare and unexpected, there's a reason these kids get attention but some guy at a corner store that got shot up doesn't.
@ReeseBobby, But it also gets attention that most school shootings happen the united states.
@yarnemelk, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that we're safer today than any other time.
@ReeseBobby, unexpected maybe, rare hardly, shootings that happen at least once a month is fairly frequent especially in nonmilitary settings
@oldmancreepyjackson, that's a fair point. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics to comment.
@ReeseBobby, the statistics still show that gun crime in general is very low in comparison to other means. Knives for instance, last time I checked, killed like 4-5 times more people than rifles. So the problem isn't the ar-15 like they are trying to show.
@ReeseBobby, the crime rate in London is currently higher than New York City.
@yarnemelk, I’m pretty sure that is mostly because we are one of the ones that actually offer free education to students up till college age even the dumb ones and those who hate school so much they have to be a dick to others to get through it. You don’t really see that in the parts of the world that would have the highest numbers.
@TheGoogler, the problem people have with assault weapons is that they are overkill for protecting your family or whatever, but greatly increase the casualties of a massacre and such. Knives kill more people overall, but you can’t commit a massacre with a knife. And you don’t need an assault rifle to defend your home either, I doubt that there’s a criminal out there who won’t stop at the sight of a simple shotgun or handgun. The *only* reason you might need an AR specifically is the hypothetical situation where you need to fight the government, but if we’re being realistic, that’s a bit of a gun-nut fantasy.
@YUNoJump, I would say that school in Japan would beg to differ about that knife statement. You are perfectly capable of killing a large amount of people with knives. Also, saying that fighting the government in case of tyranny is only a gun nut fantasy is what will lead to us being unable to defend ourselves in the case where it does actually happen. And I know this comparison is beaten to death, but you can kill just as many people with a car. So the mass homicide thing is irrelevant no matter if the car serves a different general purpose. The arguments that are given can be applied to anything that is capable of killing. We should ban all chemicals as well, since you can make explosives with quite a few. Molotov cocktails? Ban all alcohol. Swords? Ban those too, even decorative swords can be sharpened and used to kill quite a number of people.
I don't own a gun btw, but I know that the guns aren't the problem. It's the people.
@ReeseBobby, while murders have always happened, mass murders with this scale and frequency outside of wartime has not.
@ReeseBobby, violent crime has been dropping since before the 1950's. Due to nuclear weapons we are at the most peaceful time in all of human history so far.
@TheGoogler, If we’re talking about the Osaka school massacre, eight people died and it was hardly normal. The US sees massacres every month at least, and school shootings even more.
The reason I say it’s a fantasy is because there’s no reason to believe that the US in particular would turn tyrannical. Plenty of other first world countries have no major gun presence, and they’re just fine. The US is already on top of the world; there’s no reason for them to shake everything up by doing such a thing.
The difference between cars, chemicals, knives and guns is that guns serve no other purpose than killing. Take away cars and you need a new form of transport, take away harmful chemicals and you need to rework a massive portion of the manufacturing industry, take away knives and you can’t cut anything. But take away ARs, and you lose nothing except the ability to kill people, and more effectively than most other alternatives.
@YUNoJump, you just said that you cant commit mass homicide with knives, I gave an example of otherwise. No matter if was "hardly normal" or not, it is possible. And guns arent made to kill people, guns are made to shoot projectiles, knives are made to cut, cars are made to move. You are jumping past the inherent "function" of only guns and only saying what the projectile "may" do. Like I said, knives are made to cut things, so if a person is cut with it it is still serving it's function. A car is made to move, if it is moving and hits someone it still served it's inherent function. Chemicals are a bit more tricky as many serve different functions, but all the same. A gun is no different. Guns are made to shoot a projectiles, no matter what a gun hits it has served it's purpose, whether it's a person or a plastic bottle on a fence. Your last point is also moot, only a small percentage of private owned rifles are used in any type of homicide.
@TheGoogler, yes it’s possible, but it’s also uncommon enough for it to not be an issue. You can kill anyone with anything, the important aspect is how easy it is, or how commonly it happens. Knives are not frequently massacre tools.
Those definitions are just dumbed down to fit your argument. Yes guns don’t NEED to be used to kill people, but that’s what they’re designed for. You can use them for target shooting or hunting, but hunting is just killing animals instead, and target shooting was specifically invented to train people on how to shoot living things. Mechanically these items do a specific thing, but they have social definitions attached to them, which generally add the point of “not to be used on people”.
All of this is getting away from my original point; ARs are overkill for civilian use. I think shotguns/hunting rifles/handguns are ok if there’s suitable background checks, but I can’t see the particular need for an AR in a household.
@YUNoJump, in 2015, according to the FBI: only 252 deaths were from rifles, Knives killed in comparison... 1544 people, 437 people were killed by blunt objects, 642 by personal weapons (meaning a persons body). 844 by "other" weapons not stated. Heck, 120 died by asphyxiation. Oh, why not just ban hand guns as well? They have quite the body count on them at a whopping 6,447 (all the numbers stated don't separate suicide so some may be lower). If we are going by capable death tolls then assault rifles should be second to last on the list I just gave.
@Baileyjrob, can you be sure that perhaps the decrease in wars hasn't led to violent people lacking a contained outlet and being violent in society? Either way previous generations knew what it was like to get shot.
@ReeseBobby, oh certainly, guns were still shooting since they’ve been created. As for the war argument... I suppose it’s not IMPOSSIBLE, it just seems like a bit of a stretch.
@YUNoJump, I am not the one suiting things to my objective. You said that all the other things had different functions. The function of a gun isn't to kill, it's to shoot, no matter what it's being pointed at. And when people make guns, they design them to be accurate, that is all. Just like how cars are designed to be efficient in moving forward. You generalize one but over specify with the other, meaning you aren't being consistent, I am. And if the only reason we should ban them is because of a false social stigma, then this is an even greater reason to not allow it. And I just gave a list of numbers from the FBI that proves my point of death tolls and why banning assault rifles make no sense. Get rid of handguns if you are worried about people dying. But you are fine with handguns so I guess the only reason you want assault rifles gone is the stigma.
Anyways, let's just agree to disagree. Thanks for keeping it civil, I'm out. 👉
@YUNoJump, I love how you just make up your own facts. Do some unbiased research on gun deaths. You’ll quickly find that “assault weapons” are extremely low percentage of homicides.
You say that fighting the government is gun but fantasy. But you are completely wrong and look like an anti-gun nut.
US citizens will Not have to fight the government BECAUSE we are so well armed. Mutual assured destruction is not wanting war. It’s making war so costly that it will not happen.
@big freedom, they are a smaller percentage of deaths, but it’s a percentage that can be lowered with no major trade off. Restricting shotguns/handguns means that people may not be able to protect themselves, but you don’t need something like an AR for that. It’s not going to stop all gun crime ever, but no law can do that.
“Mutually assured destruction” is not what stops governments from cracking down. The electoral process does that. America still has an electoral system characterised by two very opposed sides, so if one side were to suddenly start going full North Korea, the other side would be able to win the next election just by opposing them and eating up the votes. This happens in every two-party democracy, see also Britain and Australia, among many others. Heck, trump winning is a clear sign that the government can’t get too dodgy before people start to care.
@YUNoJump, you’re right we should totally ban “assault weapons”. That’s a useless and unspecific term but let’s just take it at face value. Let’s ban any gun that has specifically assaulted someone. We can take the gun that was responsible and melt it down. Now that specific “assault weapon” is out of circulation and destroyed. Crisis averted. Now all the law abiding guns are safe again. My AR doesn’t have to live in fear because the assaulting weapon was destroyed
@Richard Cypher, I’ll leave the definitions and nitpicking to the lawmakers. I’m no gun expert but I’m pretty sure there’s at least SOME sort of minor distinction between a pump action shotgun and an ar15. But you don’t need more than a basic shotgun or pistol to defend yourself.
@YUNoJump, sure I do. What if there’s more than 3 intruders
@Richard Cypher, then you need to try and make peace with that cartel/ninja clan my dude
@YUNoJump, there will be peace when I’m done firing all 30 rounds in half a second
@Richard Cypher, i suppose if you’re the sort of person to have major quarrels with cartels/ninja clans then you’re not gonna let the law stop you from being an action hero
@YUNoJump, Swords. I can counter ever claim you just made with swords. Swords where designed to kill. That is their intended manufactured purpose. And let me tell you with a good sword and minimal training you can kill an ass load of people in very quick succession. If you dont belive me look up how the Japanese decimated trench warfare by taking a few guys armed with swords into the narrow aisles of the trenches. They would massacre droves before being shot down. Now imagine same scenario but in a school. Also most hunting rifles shoot a much larger round then a AR-15. And i can shoot and reload my rifle very quickly. Even my bolt action. So that also trumps your argument about ar-15 being overkill. Btw, have you ever shot a shotgun before? Do you know the kind of damage it can do? An AR will shoot through a person. A shotgun full of buck shot or a slug will tear a person in half. But yes. The AR is over kill. Lol learn about guns ok? Before running your mouth.
@YUNoJump, Now obviously Swords arnt used to kill people in this day and age. But the lethality is there. Should we ban swords because they where "designed" to kill? Of course not. Well the same goes for guns. Guns dont kill people. People kill people. If they didnt have access to a gun they would have used some other means to do what they wanted. Its laughable how instead of focusing on the real problem, the people, you use a scape goat. Why try to fix a difficult problem when you can invent a scape goat? Guns have never been the problem. Its damaged or deranged people that are the problem. But instead of trying to fix the real problem you would rather put your head in the sand and blame something else. Smh. Go ahead and ban guns. Create a nice big black market for guns. Remember prohibition? Probably not. You dont do research. Well look it up. Now instead of liquor, its guns. See how that would be a bigger issue then the current one? No of course you dont. You would rather be blind.
@LaDarkProphet, swords require lots of training, guns don’t. They also require close range. A 19-year-old can’t walk into a school with a sword and kill 17 people, a guy can’t kill over 60 people from 30 stories up using a sword. And you can feasibly outrun someone with a sword over flat ground. If swords were so effective compared to guns, we wouldn’t have stopped using them as the primary weapon centuries ago. It’s stupid to act as if a sword is in any way as effective as a gun, especially in an act of terror like a massacre/school shooting.
I don’t deny that guns/ar15s aren’t the ONLY issue, but I believe they’re an easy one to fix. We try to treat insane people, but we also don’t let them do whatever they want before we fix them.
Prohibition is a very different scenario than guns. If you want a source, consider that Australia and Britain have had practically zero massacres etc. since enacting gun control. It’s a common citation, but it’s a good one.
@YUNoJump, Really? No massacres eh? All those terror attacks must be a figment of my imagination. And you apparently know as much about swords as you do guns. Which is nothing. Ive trained with 15 year olds that could very easily decimate a classroom with a sword. A small middle school kid killed 8 with a knife. Now give a high schooler a sword. But i digress. Prohibition is exaclty the direct result. Britian and Auss both had very few guns and few gun rights to begin with when they where banned. The u.s however has had guns, and gun culture, for nearly 200 years. Banning them will 100% guarantee another prohibition size crime spree. But ignorant people will speak from ignorance.
@LaDarkProphet, I obviously meant gun massacres there, I’m not claiming that gun control magically stops people from using other methods.
You’ve TRAINED with 15 year olds, exactly. If you train for a long time, you miiight be good enough with a sword to match someone with a gun (although I still doubt that), but someone can just go to a gun store, buy a gun within the day, and easily kill people with rudimentary training. In fact, I’d wager there’s probably more places to buy a gun in the US than there are sword shops. I’d like to settle this a simple way: find me a source that actually makes a claim on sword vs assult rifle lethality in a massacre situation, other than “I know a guy”. I just don’t see the possibility. Would also be interesting to see a comparison between an organic liquid and a large metal/gunpowder machine with several precise parts that will explode if you make it wrong.
Would also appreciate if we stopped working on ad hominems here.
@YUNoJump, Your scape goating. And you once again showing your lack of firearm knowledge and U.S laws. You cannot buy any firearm until the age of 18. You cannot buy any handguns until the age of 21 and can simultaneously pass a background check. For that matter, unless your buying rifles or shotguns, you cannot buy a firearm with out proper id and background check. All those school shootings where done by stupid kids who dumb asf parents who couldnt keep their legally bought guns locked up. As far as i am aware all "mass" schootings so far where done by people either with legally owned guns or taken from family who bought them legally. And on top of that pistols kill more people in the us then AR's do, and you can even get magazines with x number of rounds. Columbine was done using shotguns and pistols. The Virginia Tech was... also done by pistols. Your argument is invalid, pointless, and only makes sense from a position of complete ignorance.
@YUNoJump, So tell me again what makes ARs so much spookier and scarier then literally any other firearm? The answer is nothing. Its superficial. Skin deep. Shallow. The media told you ARs are super scawry and so you scream out to ban ARs even though you can get the same results from just about any modern firearm. But you wouldnt know that because you dont know jack about guns. So we fall back to your arguing from a point of ignorance and have no idea what your talking about.
@YUNoJump, While im on the subject it seems your whole argument is about how an AR makes it soooooo easy to kill someone. Well i hate to tell you buddy but humans are stupid easy to kill. One good blow to the head and your out. Better ban all blunt objects because they are by far the easiest way to kill someone. While im on a rant here. The best way to kill a ton of people is to simply use a vehicle. Packed street walk and a big car. That has killed 10x the number of people then guns ever could. In the US, and in the world over, cars have by far one of the highest lethality rates on Earth. Bar none. Cars have killed more people on this Earth since their inception then a lot of other things. And in this day and age you are about 100x more likely to be killed by a car then you are by a gun. And thats the simple facts. If you only cared about saving lifes then you would ban cars or make them safer. But you dont care about actually saving lifes. You only care about banning the scary things
@LaDarkProphet, at this point we’ve completely left credibility behind and we’re just repeating already-discussed arguments, so I might as well not bother anymore. My original point was that ARs are dangerous but you don’t need them for self defence, compared to other guns. The topic has gone completely off that. If you’re just going to repeatedly drop the “cars kill more people let’s ban them” line then there’s no point in me continuing this argument. I hope you enjoyed the extensive rant that was this discussion.
@YUNoJump, Well considering you had 0 credibility to begin with this back forth was pointless from the get go. I mean you where literally arguing from a position of ignorance. You still havent been able to tell me why ARs are so bad and scawry. And the simple truth is you cant. You cannot argue with any sort of credibility that ARs are just so much more dangerous then any other firearm. Especially when you dont know a single thing about guns in the first place. This was a exercise in wasting my time. But thats ok. I dont mind pointing out peoples hypocrisy and ignorance. Cheers mate. Do some research next time ^-^.
*Comment redacted* It hurts me that funny pics can be so fvcking black and white. We are either happy and joking or or it's just a fvcking shjtstorm. I'm not sure how much more I can take. I know no one cares if I leave so I might as well. Memes aren't fvcking worth the risk of being upset by people who usually make you happy. So... whatever.
@Wait Youre A Bagel, thanks, good to know.
@Wait Youre A Bagel, dumber things than this are being said day after day since it happened so what's the difference?
@Wait Youre A Bagel, I actually watched him say this, so.
@Dephenistrator, I mean, the truth always matters.
@ReeseBobby, of course. But you missed the point
@Wait Youre A Bagel, I just skip over what I don’t want to read. Some days are more political than others on this app, but that’s ok because I understand that I’m not going to like or agree with everything that’s posted. I’d rather not see you go, but if it’s this upsetting then you’ve got to do what’s best for you. I hope you come back, as bagels are always welcome :)
@Dephenistrator, if you're saying it's worth addressing the point in the picture I agree. But given that the picture is also is also attributing something to him he never said, I think some corrections are in order.
@Wait Youre A Bagel, so, you’re triggered?
@Wait Youre A Bagel, seems like you might need to grow a thicker skin if nonsense like this app actually hurts and upsets you.
@Wait Youre A Bagel, it's pretty much human nature to such things
@Wait Youre A Bagel, I’m sorry, you will be missed more than you may think
@ImNotRacistBut, I have one question. Just one. No wrongs answers, I just want the truth. If someone were to insult you, and just insult you, whenever in your presence, would you never crack? Would you never reach a point where you couldn't take and you react negatively? Example: a coworker constantly, without fail, looks you in the eye and says, " fvck you", would you never report him, or throw back, either physically or verbally? Would you not even just tell him to stop it? If you can't answer that you would do nothing honestly, then you have no ground to ask if I'm triggered. Just to add, this isn't the only time parts of the community have upset. It's been a long time coming. Over 5 years. I have let you guys so close to my heart that whenever you hurt, it's a deep wound. You are the only people I've thought about leaving a suicide note for. Not family. Not friends. You guys. And before you say that I'm a wimp for considering suicide.try being bullied by your entire, and I
@Wait Youre A Bagel, literally mean entire, elementary school from day one and on until you graduate, then tell I'm a wimp.
@Wait Youre A Bagel, look bud, I feel for you on the bullying thing. I was bullied relentlessly as a kid, I was small, quiet, and grew up very poor (from a small mountain town that people also made fun of) I had braces, and grew up hungry. People are monsters. But suicide... never. Once I hit puberty, I grew to 6'4". I went to the army infantry and when I got out I was standing 6'4" at 230 pounds. My old bullies won't even look me in the eye. I hate bullies, they need their asses kicked in the WORST way. I know this reply is a little late, but remember man, you only get one go around on this earth, don't cut it short because people hate themselves. Be good brother/ sister. Keep your chin up, and to Hell with the rest of them.
Ugh, more misinformation. This quote is completely fabricated and he has never said anything remotely similar to this. It might as well be an April fools joke, except people believe it because it agrees with their views.
@YUNoJump, are you an avid follower? I actually heard him say this on video....
@ImNotRacistBut, can I get the source? I haven’t seen that one
That kid doesn’t either. He wasn’t even at the school when it happened. Edit: (Is an example of a false claim, thanks ios11)
@jkbrosef, in correct. He was at the school. Please do some research before repeating something you saw in passing on the internet.
@ios11, yeah my bad. Although, my research would also be on the internet, so I’m in a pickle...
@jkbrosef, no worries. 😃
@jkbrosef, But he also said in an interview that when he heard about the shooting he got his camera and then rode his bike three miles to school. I don’t know what to believe from him. If I was a jurist I would ignore his testimony.
But that was war. Not a random day at school.
@TomPholio, yeah, that doesn’t matter. You completely missed the point. Those of us who have been shot at by far worse than AR’s disagree with this chode.
That guy is not a teenager. He has freaking crows feet around his eyes, wrinkles on his forehead and, bizarre skin on his chin.
They didn’t take it whilst learning geography in a classroom you penis
Sure soldiers who signed up to defend rights and freedom and all that have been shot at. Still are. No other generation of students have had to go through these countless school shootings. Congrats america, #1 in stupidity
@AWildMagikarp, lol...so being drafted in WWII means you signed up for war? That’s news to me.