• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

2nd Amendment Is Dead

May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
I'm not gonna lie I saw the thread title and was excited that something major had FINALLY happened in light of the latest mass shooting, but I should have known better.


Red flag laws are not the end of the world. They are just one of MANY such precautions that should be on the books in order to help rein in gun violence in America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
I'm not gonna lie I saw the thread title and was excited that something major had FINALLY happened in light of the latest mass shooting, but I should have known better.

Red flag laws are not the end of the world. They are just one of MANY such precautions that should be on the books in order to help rein in gun violence in America.
And that is exactly why we won't budge an inch against authoritarians like you.
 
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
And that is exactly why we won't budge an inch against authoritarians like you.
I assume such laws will become more common as time goes on. Same goes for other common sense gun control laws. Especially given the amount of mass shootings and gun violence we have at the moment. Sensible gun control is already a popular topic for the Left and even some of the Right. So I think it's just a matter of time before we see some more measures like this implemented in most states. It's for public safety and it's hard to argue against public safety.


So you won't need to budge. People will just go around you when the voters decide they have had enough.
 
Last edited:

Madonis

Member
Oct 21, 2018
669
337
255
Most importantly, i simply see you stating we can 'respect due process' while having red flag laws. That's easy to say when you don't explain yourself. So.... Okay, how? Assume the person committed no crime. Now respect due process. Convince me you have a way to remove a law abiding citizen's rights without ignoring due process by actually explaining it, rather than just saying you can.
I have no illusions about convincing folks who appear to think that, say, a bad California law means absolutely no better laws could be drafted. But here's a good description of what would be required:

1) It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to close relatives, those living with the respondent, and perhaps also school principals or employers.

2) It should require petitioners to come forward with clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others.

3) It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him.

4) In the event of an emergency, ex parte order, a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — ideally within 72 hours.

5) The order should lapse after a defined period of time (30 days would be acceptable) unless petitioners can produce clear and convincing evidence of continued need.



Regarding the whole "pre-crime" angle some are mentioning:

A properly drawn statute will require admissible evidence — that means sworn statements, pictures of text messages, Instagram photos — combined with an opportunity to contest the charges. Further, it will impose a burden of proof well above “probably.” And it’s hardly unusual for courts to adjudicate and control for risks of potential future harm. They do so all the time when determining whether to confine the mentally ill or to issue restraining orders against estranged partners or spouses. This is well-trodden judicial ground.

 
Last edited:

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
993
536
350
Let me link my post from earlier in the thread that contains quotes from the guy:


That's an if-then statement. Basically announcing that if antifa actions lead to someone's death, he is going to begin his premeditated plan to wipe them out.

Where did you get this idea that his statement applies only to himself (despite saying "us") and he would only take action when his life is actively in danger. That flies in the face of his actual words that say otherwise.
Dayton happened. Where's the mass murder? It's obviously hyperbole, IMO.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
I assume such laws will become more common as time goes on. Same goes for other common sense gun control laws. Especially given the amount of mass shootings and gun violence we have at the moment. Sensible gun control is already a popular topic for the Left and even some of the Right. So I think it's just a matter of time before we see some more measures like this implemented in most states. It's for public safety and it's hard to argue against public safety.

So you won't need to budge. People will just go around you when the voters decide they have had enough.
The 2nd isn't going anywhere without a civil war of some sort. And if it goes, the flame of liberty goes out. The last bastion of a free populace giving up their right to protect themselves to the state.

Stopping every 5 foot woman with a stalker from protecting herself.
Stopping everyone in high crime neighborhoods from protecting their home.
Stopping everyone in high risk areas [churches, synagogues, mosques] from protecting themselves.
Stopping anyone living in rural areas that lives 20 minutes from police from protecting themselves.
Stopping anyone living near wild animals from protecting themselves and their livestock.

You want to talk about privilege, it might be thinking people don't need guns in modern society. That little pocket of safety, where you tell people they shouldn't arm themselves against a potential rapist, might just be that.

Besides, you're not even advocating for public safety. You want the temporary illusion of safety because gun control advocates don't give a flying hell about root causes, liberty, statistics, or anything else.

You want to protect a church or mosque? Arm it, don't disarm it. Anyone who thinks we can rid this land of guns is operating in fantasy land.
 
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
The 2nd isn't going anywhere without a civil war of some sort.
Sorry to stop your 2nd amendment rant short, but i never said anything about the 2nd amendment going anywhere. I was talking about sensible gun control laws being implemented. That's not the same thing. Deeper background checks, high capacity magazine bans, longer waiting periods, more severe punishments for buying or selling illegal weapons etc etc. All of these things can be implemented without touching the 2nd amendment.


And that's what I expect will happen in most states as we move forward. Especially considering how prevalent the problem has become.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AfricanKing

Gargus

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2018
358
426
370
I saw in that article I saw "I'd slaughter them in self defense", "I'd slaughter them", "I'd slaughter them and I have a detailed plan", "I look unhinged.", and "I've been trained to be dangerous".

I can kind of see why they went after him. You can't say that shit anymore. He made threats both directly and indirectly. And it is also a temporary seizure, so it isn't like they are gone for good, unless he really screws up.

So I dont think this means the 2nd amendment is dead at all. But it does make one wonder where this will lead because this is how things always start, very small.

If they do start taking guns, this will be the moment you can look back to as the start. The moment where the FBI can confiscate guns based on "suspicion" or "what they think". It's just funny how everyone praises the soldiers for protecting our freedoms meanwhile the only freedoms we have ever lost or will ever lose will be due to our own government taking them.
 

Iorv3th

Member
Jan 16, 2013
5,232
468
515
Did the guy pass his background checks? I know here if the government doesn't pass or deny you after x amount of days you can take your gun but the government can show up at any time and take them away if you are not cleared.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,622
1,237
1,205
Taylorsville, Ky!
People are missing something. The left has seized the APA and the heights of other medical organizations. There are moves afoot to define right of center thought as "mental illness." This, combined with completely unconstitutional "red flag" laws, will be used to begin the process of disarming Americans and turning us into subjects.

Oh, they will go slow at first and only go after crazy "neo-nazis." GOP cucks will go along with it, because it leaves "mainstream" boomers/Xers alone, at least for a while.

There will be resistance, but the left wing stranglehold on the media narrative will make sure that all incidents of patriots resisting gun laws will be defined as "terrorism" and used to justify even further repression.

If it's time to bury them, it is time to use them.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Sorry to stop your 2nd amendment rant short, but i never said anything about the 2nd amendment going anywhere. I was talking about sensible gun control laws being implemented. That's not the same thing. Deeper background checks, high capacity magazine bans, longer waiting periods, more severe punishments for buying or selling illegal weapons etc etc. All of these things can be implemented without touching the 2nd amendment.


And that's what I expect will happen in most states as we move forward. Especially considering how prevalent the problem has become.
You are a broken record with 'sensible gun control'/'common sense gun control'. That's a propaganda term spoken by people parroting talking points.

And it's a pile of bullshit because it means you have never actually looked at gun statistics. 'Common sense' is meaningless when the people who hold this 'common sense' have no clue about current gun laws, actual weapons on the market, or any of the commonly used terms [fully auto, ar, semi auto, assault, rifle, etc].

And as soon as you got rifles banned, you'd finally look at statistics and realize handguns cause far more deaths, are more easily concealed, and harder to disarm. So you'd come for them.

The slippery slope is real and the past 5 years have made it abundantly clear, not just with guns but with speech, abortion, and everything else. The Clinton's 'safe legal and rare' mantra, which had finally gained some level of acceptance, became 'third term abortions up until birth [and sometimes after]' practically overnight.

So no, the left can fuck off. You've proved yourselves a bunch of authoritarian statists that don't want compromise, but control. And quite frankly, people exactly like you lead that pack. So no, 'common sense' is not something you possess.

In fact, if you need to put 'common sense' in front of someone else's talking points when you speak, you lack sense. I will put up my ideas, like arming civilians, without bullshit propaganda terms meant to trick people into accepting something simply because i try to imply other imaginary people have. I'm perfectly fine if my views are uncommon, and i am perfectly fine making my own case for my beliefs.

I might have wrongthink, but at least i don't pull your doublespeak crap.

"You will be safer if we disarm you"
"We will have freer speech if we censor you"
"Liberty is fascism"

Yeah, take your common sense back to the university that sold it to you for 100k and ask for your money back. They'll laugh at you too, though.
 
Last edited:

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,618
1,403
545
Here is Robert Francis O'rourke openly admitting to gun confiscation if he's elected. He used to have fantasies about running over children with his vehicle of war, and yet we are supposed to take him seriously as some virtuous hero that cares so much about people? Most people put into positions of power in our current system are sick, and deranged. Beta is clearly not an exception.
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,618
1,403
545
People are missing something. The left has seized the APA and the heights of other medical organizations. There are moves afoot to define right of center thought as "mental illness." This, combined with completely unconstitutional "red flag" laws, will be used to begin the process of disarming Americans and turning us into subjects.

Oh, they will go slow at first and only go after crazy "neo-nazis." GOP cucks will go along with it, because it leaves "mainstream" boomers/Xers alone, at least for a while.

There will be resistance, but the left wing stranglehold on the media narrative will make sure that all incidents of patriots resisting gun laws will be defined as "terrorism" and used to justify even further repression.

If it's time to bury them, it is time to use them.
Everyone needs to read this. This is exactly what's happening.
 
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
it is the same thing. Sensible gun control and Red Flag laws means the 2nd amendment is gone.

Your feeling of being safe doesn't not take away someone else right to protect themselves.
Sorry but common sense gun control laws like extended background checks is not the same as abolishing the 2nd amendment. To pretend that it is is just silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
You are a broken record with 'sensible gun control'/'common sense gun control'. That's a propaganda term spoken by people parroting talking points.

And it's a pile of bullshit because it means you have never actually looked at gun statistics. 'Common sense' is meaningless when the people who hold this 'common sense' have no clue about current gun laws, actual weapons on the market, or any of the commonly used terms [fully auto, ar, semi auto, assault, rifle, etc].

And as soon as you got rifles banned, you'd finally look at statistics and realize handguns cause far more deaths, are more easily concealed, and harder to disarm. So you'd come for them.

The slippery slope is real and the past 5 years have made it abundantly clear, not just with guns but with speech, abortion, and everything else. The Clinton's 'safe legal and rare' mantra, which had finally gained some level of acceptance, became 'third term abortions up until birth [and sometimes after]' practically overnight.

So no, the left can fuck off. You've proved yourselves a bunch of authoritarian statists that don't want compromise, but control. And quite frankly, people exactly like you lead that pack. So no, 'common sense' is not something you possess.

In fact, if you need to put 'common sense' in front of someone else's talking points when you speak, you lack sense. I will put up my ideas, like arming civilians, without bullshit propaganda terms meant to trick people into accepting something simply because i try to imply other imaginary people have. I'm perfectly fine if my views are uncommon, and i am perfectly fine making my own case for my beliefs.

I might have wrongthink, but at least i don't pull your doublespeak crap.

"You will be safer if we disarm you"
"We will have freer speech if we censor you"
"Liberty is fascism"

Yeah, take your common sense back to the university that sold it to you for 100k and ask for your money back. They'll laugh at you too, though.
It's clear this discussion isn't going anywhere because you seem to think I am talking about banning all guns everywhere forever even though I said quite a few times now that it isn't what I am talking about. And I can't have a discussion with you if you refuse to base yourself in reality and choose to ignore everything I say. So one last time just to be perfectly clear. I am not talking about banning firearms in the US. And like I said above common sense measures like extended background checks are not the death of the 2nd amendment. That is just hyperbolic crap. Better regulations is not the death of freedom.


But it's a moot point anyway. Such measures can and will likely come to pass in most states as time goes on. Especially in Blue states. The demand for them is just too high given the problems with guns that the US has at the moment. So it's not really a question of "if" such laws will be passed. It's more of a question of "When and where" they will be passed and what shape they will take. Because it's fairly obvious that things can't be allowed to continue like they are right now with weekly mass shootings, rampant gun violence, and surging suicide rates. Eventually enough people are gonna lose someone or know someone that lost someone to where the votes will be there for change. Those like you who fear any form of gun control will simply be outnumbered enough to where changes will be able to me made with or without your support. And once again that doesn't mean people coming to take your guns. It just means better laws and regulations when it comes to gun ownership. And as you can see that has already been happening in some places. It's just a matter of time before that happens in most of the US in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
1,989
2,556
410
Here is Robert Francis O'rourke openly admitting to gun confiscation if he's elected. He used to have fantasies about running over children with his vehicle of war, and yet we are supposed to take him seriously as some virtuous hero that cares so much about people? Most people put into positions of power in our current system are sick, and deranged. Beta is clearly not an exception.
What do you want to bet that this asshole has armed guards?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGreatYosh

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,622
1,237
1,205
Taylorsville, Ky!
It's clear this discussion isn't going anywhere because you seem to think I am talking about banning all guns everywhere forever even though I said quite a few times now that it isn't what I am talking about. And I can't have a discussion with you if you refuse to base yourself in reality and choose to ignore everything I say. So one last time just to be perfectly clear. I am not talking about banning firearms in the US. And like I said above common sense measures like extended background checks are not the death of the 2nd amendment. That is just hyperbolic crap. Better regulations is not the death of freedom.


But it's a moot point anyway. Such measures can and will likely come to pass in most states as time goes on. Especially in Blue states. The demand for them is just too high given the problems with guns that the US has at the moment. So it's not really a question of "if" such laws will be passed. It's more of a question of "When and where" they will be passed and what shape they will take. Because it's fairly obvious that things can't be allowed to continue like they are right now with weekly mass shootings, rampant gun violence, and surging suicide rates. Eventually enough people are gonna lose someone or know someone that lost someone to where the votes will be there for change. Those like you who fear any form of gun control will simply be outnumbered enough to where changes will be able to me made with or without your support. And once again that doesn't mean people coming to take your guns. It just means better laws and regulations when it comes to gun ownership. And as you can see that has already been happening in some places. It's just a matter of time before that happens in most of the US in my opinion.
So you would oppose Australian or British style gun laws?
 
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
So you would oppose Australian or British style gun laws?
Not at all. They are the ideal way of dealing with gun ownership in my opinion and as a result I fully support them. In a perfect world that's how gun ownership should be handled everywhere in my opinion.


But it's not a perfect world and I am not naive enough to think that such a thing would ever be possible in the US. So I will stick to what's actually possible instead of supporting pipe dream gun ban initiatives. Common sense gun control laws on the other hand are very possible and as we can see have already begun passing in various places within the US. Especially given current social attitude towards guns in the US. Like I have been saying i consider it just a matter of time before we start seeing such measures being passed in most states. So I will dedicate my time and energy towards getting that accomplished instead of wasting time on unrealistic proposals of Nationwide gun bans and such.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

Oner

Member
Jun 19, 2015
63
43
295


Sorry not sorry ~ but the level of ignorance is beyond amazing in some of these comments in here...it's HIGHLY misogynistic and racist for anyone NOT a woman or a minority to be anti-2A.

Who the F do you think you are to tell a woman how she believes is best to protect her self and loved ones. Then to double down and think someone like me (a Hispanic) has to disarm because of YOUR "feels" when America has only been outside of it's own apartheid against POC's for only the past few decades! GFY!

I mean honestly aren't all you betas claiming that "White Nationalist Nazi's" are on the rise?! Why the flying F would you WANT to disarm, if it's such a "problem" as you claim? The logic is simple and it comes down to this ~

When extreme violence happens you have two options:

Call a good guy with a gun
or
Be the good guy with a gun

The choice and how you protect your life is up to you....I know how my wife and I choose. Anything else is irresponsible and weak.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
it's HIGHLY misogynistic and racist for anyone NOT a woman or a minority to be anti-2A.
I have officially seen it all when it comes to defending gun ownership. It's "racist" to support gun control?


What? lol
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
554
340
295
All those who know and understand the importance of the 2nd amendment need to listen to these presentations.


Sorry but common sense gun control laws like extended background checks is not the same as abolishing the 2nd amendment. To pretend that it is is just silly.
No that is exactly what it means. the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed"

"gun control" is an infringement. Common sense or not. We do not share that it is common sense because common sense to me is keeping and arming any one who wants to be armed. Natural law allows animals to protect and defend themselves. As a human I have the right to protect myself.

I'm sorry your right to feel safe does not trump my right to defend myself with whatever weapon I choose.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
All those who know and understand the importance of the 2nd amendment need to listen to these presentations.



No that is exactly what it means. the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed"

"gun control" is an infringement. Common sense or not. We do not share that it is common sense because common sense to me is keeping and arming any one who wants to be armed. Natural law allows animals to protect and defend themselves. As a human I have the right to protect myself.

I'm sorry your right to feel safe does not trump my right to defend myself with whatever weapon I choose.
Well you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but the fact we have background checks and limitations on who can own guns and what guns can be legally owned means that by your logic it's already "infringed" upon.


So that line of thinking doesn't actually hold up very well when faced with how things already work in the US and will continue to work. So no the 2nd amendment does not prohibit common sense gun control laws like better background checks.
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,622
1,237
1,205
Taylorsville, Ky!
I have officially seen it all when it comes to defending gun ownership. It's "racist" to support gun control?


What? lol
I will say this. If we actually used the force necessary in our cities to enforce the ALREADY EXTANT laws about felons with guns, you and all of your shitlib buddies would cry "racism" to the ends of the earth.

And that would actually move the needle on gun crime....unlike taking semi-automatic rifles away from sportsmen and collectors.

How about this proposal, which is completely 2A friendly...? A three-strikes law for firearm felony crimes only. First Offense-Ten Years no parole. Second Offense-Twenty Years No Parole. Third Offense-Life without Parole.

Surely you would support this common sense proposal, that respects the 2A, goes after gun criminals only, and leaves law abiding gun owners alone.

(Spoiler. I proposed this on OldGAF and was condemned as a racist.)
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
554
340
295
Well you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but the fact we have background checks and limitations on who can own guns and what guns can be legally owned means that by your logic it's already "infringed" upon.
Correct. It has been.

So that line of thinking doesn't actually hold up very well when faced with how things already work in the US and will continue to work. So no the 2nd amendment does not prohibit common sense gun control laws like better background checks.
wrong. It holds up very well. Your line of thinking that it needs more infringement is not going to hold up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner
May 22, 2018
5,398
4,852
595
I will say this. If we actually used the force necessary in our cities to enforce the ALREADY EXTANT laws about felons with guns, you and all of your shitlib buddies would cry "racism" to the ends of the earth.

And that would actually move the needle on gun crime....unlike taking semi-automatic rifles away from sportsmen and collectors.

How about this proposal, which is completely 2A friendly...? A three-strikes law for firearm felony crimes only. First Offense-Ten Years no parole. Second Offense-Twenty Years No Parole. Third Offense-Life without Parole.

Surely you would support this common sense proposal, that respects the 2A, goes after gun criminals only, and leaves law abiding gun owners alone.

(Spoiler. I proposed this on OldGAF and was condemned as a racist.)
Sounds fine to me.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
554
340
295
As for gun(or fun) control being racist. It has roots there.


Slave owners didn't want their slaves to own firearms.
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
554
340
295
You don't that right though. There are many weapons that you are not allowed to have.
Like what? I have a right and choice to break the law if I wanted. I choose not to but If I wanted to I could carry pretty much anything.

In fact there are a lot of laws that prohibit other weapons. Things like nunchucks and brass knuckles. If people were allowed they could carry these and not have to use the deadly force of a gun and instead use less lethal deterrents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
806
1,213
445
Like what? I have a right and choice to break the law if I wanted. I choose not to but If I wanted to I could carry pretty much anything.

In fact there are a lot of laws that prohibit other weapons. Things like nunchucks and brass knuckles. If people were allowed they could carry these and not have to use the deadly force of a gun and instead use less lethal deterrents.
Tanks, cannons, bombs anything like that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: daveonezero

Rudelord

Member
Jun 11, 2013
484
255
490
Tanks, cannons, bombs anything like that?
I can own a tank and cannon if I really wanted to in the US. It's simply not worth the expense of keeping them maintained when they're not designed for having one man handling their costs but a nation state for fighting other nation states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Oner

Member
Jun 19, 2015
63
43
295
I have officially seen it all when it comes to defending gun ownership. It's "racist" to support gun control?


What? lol
As for fun control being racist. It has roots there.


Slave owners didn't want their slaves to own firearms.
As stated ~ so much ignorance from people who don't know anything about #2A. TY daveonezero for saving me the time to reply to an unimportant person who supports racist/misogynistic ideologies.
 
Last edited:

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
373
135
195
I will say this. If we actually used the force necessary in our cities to enforce the ALREADY EXTANT laws about felons with guns, you and all of your shitlib buddies would cry "racism" to the ends of the earth.

And that would actually move the needle on gun crime....unlike taking semi-automatic rifles away from sportsmen and collectors.

How about this proposal, which is completely 2A friendly...? A three-strikes law for firearm felony crimes only. First Offense-Ten Years no parole. Second Offense-Twenty Years No Parole. Third Offense-Life without Parole.

Surely you would support this common sense proposal, that respects the 2A, goes after gun criminals only, and leaves law abiding gun owners alone.

(Spoiler. I proposed this on OldGAF and was condemned as a racist.)
I like tough on crime.

We should be doing more about second hand sales to fight against trafficking like this:

 

CeroFrio996

Member
Jun 20, 2019
290
174
355
In self defense. There is no point in having a gun if you're not going to use it to defend yourself.
You dont slaughter people in self defense... and you can't just say "self defense" like you're playing a magical get our of jail free card.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
It's clear this discussion isn't going anywhere because you seem to think I am talking about banning all guns everywhere forever even though I said quite a few times now that it isn't what I am talking about. And I can't have a discussion with you if you refuse to base yourself in reality and choose to ignore everything I say. So one last time just to be perfectly clear. I am not talking about banning firearms in the US. And like I said above common sense measures like extended background checks are not the death of the 2nd amendment. That is just hyperbolic crap. Better regulations is not the death of freedom.


But it's a moot point anyway. Such measures can and will likely come to pass in most states as time goes on. Especially in Blue states. The demand for them is just too high given the problems with guns that the US has at the moment. So it's not really a question of "if" such laws will be passed. It's more of a question of "When and where" they will be passed and what shape they will take. Because it's fairly obvious that things can't be allowed to continue like they are right now with weekly mass shootings, rampant gun violence, and surging suicide rates. Eventually enough people are gonna lose someone or know someone that lost someone to where the votes will be there for change. Those like you who fear any form of gun control will simply be outnumbered enough to where changes will be able to me made with or without your support. And once again that doesn't mean people coming to take your guns. It just means better laws and regulations when it comes to gun ownership. And as you can see that has already been happening in some places. It's just a matter of time before that happens in most of the US in my opinion.
Yeah, sure. You started out with:

Red flag laws are not the end of the world. They are just one of MANY such precautions that should be on the books in order to help rein in gun violence in America.
You act like you can just walk into a store and buy a gun. You have no idea what you are talking about, yet call it common sense. Meanwhile, we have major candidates like Biden talking about criminalizing all magazines that hold multiple bullets [aka all magazines aka almost every gun] and beto calling for gun confiscation.

And again, you don't even know a damn thing about actual gun statistics. Suicide rates in America are in line with other western countries with gun control, and even significantly lower than some.

You want gun laws that promote public safety? Mandatory gun training.

70 years ago gun violence was not a problem. What has changed? Oh, everything you are unwilling to talk about because you support it all.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Blunt objects [clubs, hammers, etc.] cause more deaths in America than rifles do according to FBI statistics.

And knives cause over 3x more deaths than rifles. Some years it's 5x, if i recall correctly.

Illegally owned handguns are involved in far more homicides than any of those. But if we discuss those, we must also discuss who is committing those crimes and who the victims are, neither of which the left allows. Illegally owned handguns are also not going anywhere, regardless of gun laws.

But hey, we just criminalize knives and hammers too, right? And acid. And trucks. And on and on.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,505
211
775
I'm fine with the assault weapon buy-back that Beto suggested - it's smart, banning certain guns won't do much for the existing hundreds of millions already out there. I'm glad a mainstream politician is actually promoting that policy; I would not have believed it 5 years ago. Slowly but surely we are inching towards stricter gun laws.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
I'm fine with the assault weapon buy-back that Beto suggested - it's smart, banning certain guns won't do much for the existing hundreds of millions already out there. I'm glad a mainstream politician is actually promoting that policy; I would not have believed it 5 years ago. Slowly but surely we are inching towards stricter gun laws.
Define assault weapon.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Oner

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
554
340
295
The categorical definitions here should be built upon and/or modified as needed for current day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

I would prefer it to be less strict in fact.
Do you understand what that law banned?

Also most of the conditions are so out of date. I can buy one of these pistols and it basically by passes almost every condition there except for being select fire. or fully automatic.


Further more a tax stamp can get past many more of the restrictions,.

All of which are infringements.

surprisingly the Wiki even states this:

"Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity and firearm homicides while there is tentative evidence that they decrease the frequency of mass shootings.[1]"

You dont slaughter people in self defense... and you can't just say "self defense" like you're playing a magical get our of jail free card.
right its just self defense no matter how many people are coming for him. If they keep coming they would probably get slaughtered.

We do not know the full contest of the articles quotes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,505
211
775
Do you understand what that law banned?

Also most of the conditions are so out of date. I can buy one of these pistols and it basically by passes almost every condition there except for being select fire. or fully automatic.
Did you read what I actually wrote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important