[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53004834]I've seen this attitude plenty on the Republican side but I've never seen it on the Democrat side. I've never seen anyone happy about gun bans because "this will make those Republicans so triggered"[/QUOTE]
maybe nobody outright saying it but in the language used to discuss it, (gun nut, saying shit like "oh no you're going to lose your toys") certainly implies a sort of happiness at the erosion of the second amendment
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53003990]Means of self preservation or sufficiency? Do you live by an eat-what-you-catch code?
I'm sorry, but you're fear of guns being taken away is not justified in my eyes. However, my (and millions of americans') fear of going into medical debt is VERY real.[/QUOTE]
Living on a ranch with natural predators and occasionally rabid animals combined with less than ideal police response times? I’d say at least the self preservation part fits. My parents were against guns for a while, but still had them out of necessity. Self sufficiency in our case more depends on if a disaster happens which makes getting basic needs from a store unfeasible, such as extended power outages, flooding or other natural disasters which will only increase under the effects of global warming.
[QUOTE=nox;53004138]Can you give me an example of a civilian occupation that can't be done without the use of a firearm? Guards don't really count considering there are plenty of guard jobs that don't require you to carry any lethal weaponry.[/QUOTE]
Farming, homesteading, the large amount of people in the firearms business (including myself)? But hey fuck me I guess since I’m just a minority of people who aren’t enough to justify the continued existence of a right which effects my life in a significant way.
I’m not trying to say that issues like the shit economy and healthcare aren’t important, they really are and this country needs to get its shit together. However I’m borderline offended at the amount of people here saying the 2nd amendment doesn’t matter [I]at all[/I] and that I shouldn’t be concerned by politicians trying their hardest to pick and choose what parts of the Bill of Rights applies to them. Just because they have failed many times doesn’t mean they aren’t trying.
If we had more people like Bernie Sanders in government who has his priorities on fixing shit, this wouldn’t be an issue for me since he seems like a kind of person who can actually be reasonable.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;53004149]republicans have been trying to suppress the voting rights of minorities for decades: i sleep
some democrats are taking some specific guns: real shit?[/QUOTE]
What kind of memeshit response is this? I think the Republican Party in power is total garbage. I’m not going to try and downplay the significance of rights to affordable healthcare care and equality like several of you have been trying to downplay my right “to own shooty bang toys”. We should be pushing for both. Anything less is unacceptable.
[QUOTE=New Cidem;53004249]I'm sorry that some politicians don't like firearms. I do like firearms, but you know what I like more? Living in a first world country not saddled by trillions of dollars of debt, not plagued by rising tuition costs and falling life expectancy, and not being embarrassed multiple times a day by our "President" as he lays fresh manure on the American people. I'll gladly take needlessly strict gun control over this utter shitshow [b]any day.[/b] We just can't afford to allow our government to be run so poorly by such incompetents.[/QUOTE]
Then make it clear that you want support on both issues, otherwise how are they going to know or respect what their constituents want? The right to affordable healthcare and equality should not hinge upon getting rid of the right to own firearms.
[QUOTE=nox;53004364]A very small portion of Americans are living remotely enough to justifiably say their gun keeps food on the table, and even then there are firearm alternatives; traps, crossbows, longbows, big-bore airguns which are legally not firearms but just as effective at bringing down mid-size game.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ona;53004407]And how many people in the U.S, exactly, rely on hunting and personally grown food as their primary source of food?
I'm sure there are some people out there, living off the grid, who only eat what they catch and grow. But how many of them are there out of necessity instead of choice? How many people in the U.S, on average, [I]require[/I] a firearm to continue living? And I do mean this in the most literal terms here. If somebody is eating what they catch, but are doing so because they [I]can[/I] and [I]want to[/I], rather than being [I]forced to.[/I] Then that doesn't count.
I'd wager the amount of people in the states who actually need, through sheer necessity, to hunt food and/or protect personal crops to survive is very, very low. If you ask me, this isn't a valid argument for such freeform gun ownership. And hasn't been for a long time. It might have been that way back when the constitution was written, but that was over 200 years ago, now. A lot changes in over two centuries. Hell, a lot has changed in the last two [I]decades.[/I]
The most commonly cited reason for owning a gun in this day and age is "protection". But the fallacy there seems to be that in places like Britain, Australia, many parts of Asia, ect... Places which are largely considered to be "just as" civilised and advanced as the United States, gun ownership is much less common and much more heavily regulated... And yet violent crime seems to be much lower than in the U.S.
I'm privileged to say that in my 24 - almost 25 - years of being alive, I've never felt like the power to kill somebody at the squeeze of a trigger was necessary for me to own. Which isn't to say I haven't expressed interest in owning a gun. I would love to get into target shooting or gun collection one of these days, perhaps even skeet shooting or something like that. But I've so far never had the time or money to pursue it and it hasn't been [I]as[/I] interesting to me as some other hobbies I'd like to pursue. But that's the key point there. For me, owning guns would be a hobby. A luxury, a passtime. I've never felt like owning a gun is something I've [I]needed[/I] to do in order to stay safe or remain "free".
I think this idea that "gun ownership = freedom" is something deep-set in U.S culture, something that isn't present in a lot of other westernised cultures. And something that could, in many cases, be harmful to people. On a political scale, there are thousands of people who will vote for a harmful political party based solely on the fact that the other option is stricter on gun ownership, and gets painted as being "restrictive". And as a result we get situations where people like Trump come into power by exploiting that fear, and then they keep afloat on top of it despite all the damage they do to other aspects of life.
After all, what good is owning a gun if you can't afford to live in your own home? What good is owning a gun if you can't afford to pay medical bills? If you can't afford to drive anywhere, or you get denied service/employment due to your race, or sexuality, or gender identity?[/QUOTE]
Thankfully we don’t decide who gets to have what rights based on majority rule. Under that logic the exact same thing could be argued against those things you just mentioned. “Why should we give rights to transgendered people when they are such a small part of the population? Does anyone really need marriage rights to live? Not enough people are non-cisgender to justify etc etc...”
See how dumb that sounds? And this same exact mindset was taken advantage of when no one in a position to defend other rights was willing to. So now we have police departments in some places straight up robbing people with civil asset forfeiture, and the 4th amendment being absolutely butchered by the Patriot Act and the NSA.
We need to defend all rights, not just one or the other. All this is doing is creating another internal conflict in society so that the political pressure is diverted away from the 2 party system which continues to fail us.
[QUOTE=Ona;53004407]You can't shoot sickness. You can't shoot starvation. You can't shoot bigotry or discrimination. A gun won't solve any of those issues. And despite that, there are still thousands of Americans who will hold onto their guns over these other freedoms, all the while saying that by taking their gun, you would somehow be taking their liberty from them.
I suppose it's just hard for me, as somebody who wasn't born in the states, and who hasn't lived there, to understand how a mindset like that can exist. I look in from the outside, and see a country that's trying to fight fire with fire and then complaining about all the fire that's around. All the while, big, serious issues get lost amid arguments that, really, don't have any bearing on the matter at hand.
This whole thread? This whole news story? It's about how unpopular Trump has made the Republican party and how much influence the Democrats are now capable of asserting simply due to their rival making such a mess of things. Then one person posts "I sure hope they don't take my guns" And that's all we can fucking talk about for three pages.[/QUOTE]
Again what is it with this ultimatum? Sure guns probably won’t pay medical bills, but starvation is debatable and we’re living in a time where neo nazis are attacking people.
As for how this thread got turned into another gun debate; when several people keep talking shit about our rights as if they know what’s good for us, what our needs are, and how we should live, then you shouldn’t be surprised when we start to push back.
I don't think the issue of gun violence can remain unaddressed but I also think it really blows that a small minority of all gun owners are ruining it for everyone else.
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
I think the federal government should make a big push towards gun safety if any attempt at gun regulation is deemed politically untenable. The highest level effort for gun literacy should be made.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53004853]I think the federal government should make a big push towards gun safety if any attempt at gun regulation is deemed politically untenable. The highest level effort for gun literacy should be made.[/QUOTE]
this is why i think gun safety should be brought back to high school. guns are a part of american life, and everybody should be aware of how to safely operate around them. i feel it would do quite a lot to reduce both accidents and fear surrounding them.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53004852]Living on a ranch with natural predators and occasionally rabid animals combined with less than ideal police response times? I’d say at least the self preservation part fits. My parents were against guns for a while, but still had them out of necessity. Self sufficiency in our case more depends on if a disaster happens which makes getting basic needs from a store unfeasible, such as extended power outages, flooding or other natural disasters which will only increase under the effects of global warming.
[/quote]
So you're a shoe-in for a license in pretty much any country with gun control.
[quote]
What kind of memeshit response is this? I think the Republican Party in power is total garbage. I’m not going to try and downplay the significance of rights to affordable healthcare care and equality like several of you have been trying to downplay my right “to own shooty bang toys”. We should be pushing for both. Anything less is unacceptable.
[/quote]
Considering the thread topic, a lot of people in here are (somewhat) understandably interpreting some people's pro-2A posts as equivalent to thinking R > D despite all those issues you mention.
[quote]
Then make it clear that you want support on both issues, otherwise how are they going to know or respect what their constituents want? The right to affordable healthcare and equality should not hinge upon getting rid of the right to own firearms.
[/quote]
Agreed. But given the option there's IMO a clear choice.
[quote]
We need to defend all rights, not just one or the other. All this is doing is creating another internal conflict in society so that the political pressure is diverted away from the 2 party system which continues to fail us.
[/quote]
Maybe you should actually consider and revise your rights based on modern times. Not a dig at 2A there, but in general.
[quote]
Again what is it with this ultimatum? Sure guns probably won’t pay medical bills, but starvation is debatable and we’re living in a time where neo nazis are attacking people.
As for how this thread got turned into another gun debate; when several people keep talking shit about our rights as if they know what’s good for us, what our needs are, and how we should live, then you shouldn’t be surprised when we start to push back.[/QUOTE]
Again, people pointing out the complete fallacy of single-issue 2A voters rather than an ultimatum. Chill.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;53001485]Jesus Christ the basic right to healthcare, LGBTQ rights, and an impossibly large number of other good things for the American people are more important than the paranoia of the left taking your fucking guns away. Which by the way hasn't happened, it didn't happen under Obama, and it won't ever happen.[/QUOTE]
Not for a lack of trying though. I'm a fucking adult, I don't need nanny government telling me what I can and can't buy.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53004868]this is why i think gun safety should be brought back to high school. guns are a part of american life, and everybody should be aware of how to safely operate around them. i feel it would do quite a lot to reduce both accidents and fear surrounding them.[/QUOTE]
I mean you'd likely still get these mass shootings from time to time but accidents and homicides might go down in the long run. Most gun violence doesn't get reported on because statistics aren't as sexy as a gun nut unleashing on innocent people.
[QUOTE=SataniX;53004869]Again, people pointing out the complete fallacy of single-issue 2A voters rather than an ultimatum. Chill.[/QUOTE]
it's a fallacy that hasn't been in play in any posts i have seen here. however, i have seen a lot of people instantly jumping to the conclusion that because somebody might be worried about second amendment rights, they must believe that republicans are better than democrats. this is fallacious.
The either-or is so weird tbh.
A lot of people imply that the plan is to have a total gun ban? That's just absurd and is very unconstitutional, it's also hardly how any European country or Canada actually work.
There even tend to be work-based exceptions to fast-track your way to a license. You could easily deal with the homesteader/farmers.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53004877]I mean you'd likely still get these mass shootings from time to time but accidents and homicides might go down in the long run. Most gun violence doesn't get reported on because statistics aren't as sexy as a gun nut unleashing on innocent people.[/QUOTE]
the only way you'd be able to get rid of mass shootings from a gun legislation route would be to essentially ban guns in the US, which is both politically unviable and logistically impossible. i personally think focusing on the accidents and less notable homicides is more important and would lead to a healthier country in general. most gun violence in this country has its roots in poverty, as do so many other issues. address poverty, and you're well on your way to fixing those issues without infringing on rights.
with mass shootings, i feel the problem lies deeper. we have a sickness in our culture, one that is causing massive amounts of mental illness, and for some mass violence is the result. guns aren't the cause but the tool which is used to inflict violence. i see the argument that getting rid of guns would lower the casualties of mass violence events, which is true, but that doesn't address the cultural issues which drive said violence to happen.
More guns will not nessecarily lead to more gun violence. They will make it easier to commit violence, but the same can be said for knives, bats or even cars.
The shit that California gets down to only bends over people who work within the frames of the law to obtain them, the majority of gun violence will be coming from people who obtain them through illegal channels—such as the case of Sandy Hook, mentally handicapped individuals who steal them from their parents.
Inversely, more guns will not lower crime rates, obviously. It will bring more chaos to a shooting situation. The states with higher crime rates also tend to be poorer(Red states ironically) leading people to commit crimes to get by.
Restricting concealed carry works, restricting ownership on people convicted of domestic violence works, background checks work.
Democrats are like a carpenter hammering a nail. They hit it right the first time(economic and social policies) and then bend the head on the second hit(gun control).
Just for the record, my father supports the second amendment but doesn’t own guns himself because he believes them to be too much trouble.(especially true in NJ) I’m anything but a ‘gun nut’ if someone here goes off on me.
Any smart Democrat could point out the administrative flaw in GOP states, higher rate of impovishered households and more likely to commit crimes, lower quality education and the higher number of guns in this situation is what leads to many considering the option. Fixing these economic issues would reduce the need for many to consider such a thing.
Here's how you minimize mass shootings: stop talking about gun control, except as it relates to restricting access to violent criminals and the mentally unfit and actually maintaining the background check system so it catches people who should not be able to purchase and own firearms while allowing responsible gun owners to exercise their 2A rights.
Instead, tackle the opioid epidemic. Tackle the yawning income inequality. Tackle the pathetic state of worker rights and worker treatment, so people actually feel like they have a future. Tackle the gang problem and give gang members an alternate career that allows them to care for their needs.
Gun violence isn't the disease killing America, it is a symptom of the disease. Don't take away guns, take away the motivation to go on a shooting rampage.
Of course, that's a lot harder than just proposing a feel-good law restricting or loosening access to guns to please constituents for another election season. It certainly will take longer than four years, so politicians see no benefit to them.
Throwing everyone's money to the rich in a deficit-busting tax cut is going to add, not subtract, to the motivation to commit a public shooting. Republicans have no interest in fixing the gun crime problem, they just want theirs at the expense of the nation.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53004439]You mean the assault weapons ban that my great-aunt dreaded until it was passed and then suddenly every gun she owned was illegal except for her AR-15?[/QUOTE]
You know full well they would have told everyone to turn in ALL their guns, even the bolt action hunting rifles if given the chance. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38"]It came straight from the horse's mouth.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53004439]So where are all the gun-nuts storming DC in order to defend Social Security? To defend Medicare/Medicaid? Top ensure health-care for all? To end crony capitalism? To end the massive inequality of wealth in this country that was bought out by lobbyists for large corporations and banks?
Oh right, those poor, poor people were told by the very same people who promised to let them keep their guns that those entitlement programs are for moochers and bums, and are a drain on the system, while promising that if the rich get richer, then so will everyone else, and they (y'all?) bought it hook, line, and sinker, so long as you get to keep your boomsticks.
Which who can blame you? Why should you ever get involved politically and pressure representatives who give a shit about [I]actually[/I] fixing the health-care and education systems to consider your gun rights and negotiating or suggesting solutions, when you have a guy who will just let you keep your guns, so long as you vote them in to gut those services? That's too much like work![/QUOTE]
You don't conduct political discourse with the threat of armed rebellion. The only time it would be justified is when something absolutely dire happens like the situation in Venezuela or the Communist Revolution of Cuba. Basically when all other protections have failed and the government seizes supreme powers by force. Also I never said anything about supporting trickle down economics or being against welfare. I don't support the platform of the republican party, so calm down and stop assuming shit about me that you have no idea about.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53004439]So then you should have no issue with them banning bump-stocks or other means of artificially increasing your effective rate-of-fire? They're not a toy after all, so having fun with your guns isn't important.
And before you start the whole "but I should be able to customize my gun!" argument, the 2nd amendment as-written guarantees you a right to arms, not to fancy accessories that make them more "fun".[/QUOTE]
I would have an issue with the "bumpfire stock ban" and [I]especially[/I] "other rate of fire enhancing devices". I would be open to restricting them or making them harder to get through the NFA which requires a $200 tax stamp, through background check, fingerprints, and a photo, but there should be an avenue available for them to be legally obtained. As the bill was written, it was straight up just an attempt to ban semiautomatic weapons through legislation which was intentionally left vaguely worded.
Also by the logic of your last sentence, we shouldn't be able to own scopes, foregrips, triggers, or virtually any other accessory because it's not explicitly stated in the 2nd amendment.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53004439]So you won't vote for someone who might vote to remove your right to live innawoods when the shit hits the fan (which trust me, if shit gets THAT bad I highly doubt you or anyone else will care about living legally in terms of fire-arm ownership), but you'll vote for someone who allows you to do so on the pretense that they take away the ability for people to pursue healthy lives without going into massive debt?[/QUOTE]
Until you find me a politician who actually has the will and the means to fix our shitty healthcare system, then I won't vote for either choice. Nothing is going to change if we just keep voting for the lesser of two shits. All which has happened as a result is that the candidates get shittier with each election cycle. The last few presidents in office didn't do much of anything to help us out over here in that regard, and it was clear that Clinton was only going to be more of the same. I would have voted for Bernie if he hadn't been completely screwed over. He won the primary in our state as well.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53004966]Until you find me a politician who actually has the will and the means to fix our shitty healthcare system, then I won't vote for either choice. Nothing is going to change if we just keep voting for the lesser of two shits. All which has happened as a result is that the candidates get shittier with each election cycle. The last few presidents in office didn't do much of anything to help us out over here in that regard, and it was clear that Clinton was only going to be more of the same. I would have voted for Bernie if he hadn't been completely screwed over. He won the primary in our state as well.[/QUOTE]
If you refuse to even participate in the democratic process, how do you expect anything to change?
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53004966]
You don't conduct political discourse with the threat of armed rebellion. The only time it would be justified is when something absolutely dire happens like the situation in Venezuela or the Communist Revolution of Cuba. Basically when all other protections have failed and the government seizes supreme powers by force. Also I never said anything about supporting trickle down economics or being against welfare. I don't support the platform of the republican party, so calm down and stop assuming shit about me that you have no idea about.[/quote]
So you're going to wait until they've stripped you of all your other rights first?
[quote][b]I would have an issue with the "bumpfire stock ban" and [I]especially[/I] "other rate of fire enhancing devices".[/b] I would be open to restricting them or making them harder to get through the NFA which requires a $200 tax stamp, through background check, fingerprints, and a photo, but there should be an avenue available for them to be legally obtained. As the bill was written, it was straight up just an attempt to ban semiautomatic weapons through legislation which was intentionally left vaguely worded.[/quote]
Why? 99% of gun-owners I've seen on this forum arguing for keeping them say they're impractical, expensive (as they burn through ammo) and have no practical application, even in a mass-shooting even (which was later proven wrong, of course, in Nevada), that they're "purely for shits and giggles". Besides, all you have to do, according to said gun-owners, is place your fingers in a certain arrangement while holding it from the hip and you can still bump-fire away, so you've effectively lost nothing in terms of how you giggle and shit, while making it all the more difficult for someone who [I]would[/I] attempt to recreate what happened in Nevada.
[quote]Also by the logic of your last sentence, we shouldn't be able to own scopes, foregrips, triggers, or virtually any other accessory because it's not explicitly stated in the 2nd amendment.[/quote]
Last I heard, triggers aren't accessories, they're components.
[quote]Until you find me a politician who actually has the will and the means to fix our shitty healthcare system, then I won't vote for either choice. Nothing is going to change if we just keep voting for the lesser of two shits. All which has happened as a result is that the candidates get shittier with each election cycle. The last few presidents in office didn't do much of anything to help us out over here in that regard, and it was clear that Clinton was only going to be more of the same. I would have voted for Bernie if he hadn't been completely screwed over. He won the primary in our state as well.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The people as a whole need to be more pro-active in politics if they want to exact the changes this country needs, both in terms of fire-arms [I]and[/I] healthcare, and even wealth inequality, rather than singular people/relatively small groups of influential people having a louder voice than the rest of us who are forced to live in the realities they create.
Obamacare gets a lot of shit but it was a step in the right direction. Trump and the republicans haven't really provided a good alternative.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53005070]Obamacare gets a lot of shit but it was a step in the right direction. Trump and the republicans haven't really provided a good alternative.[/QUOTE]
It was all that was really possible with the congress anyways.
Hillary is for single-payer healthcare, but we have the people in congress that we have. Even with a democratic majority there are still blue dog democrats, you aren't going to get anything done waving your veiny single-payer dick as opposed to pushing incremental reform towards universal healthcare first.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53005070]Obamacare gets a lot of shit but it was a step in the right direction. Trump and the republicans haven't really provided a good alternative.[/QUOTE]
Because Trump and the Republicans don't care about the working and middle classes.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53004506]I honestly can't believe that some people in this thread can look at all the egregious shit the Republicans have done over the last two years, including [B]selling this country to the Russians[/B] and somehow think that gun control is a deal breaker for voting for a Democrat.[/QUOTE]
remember, there were LGBT groups who were full in support for Trump, the guy who's done damn near everything he can to drag them back into the closet. Somehow Democrats are still too unpalatable verses someone who would rather see them dead or institutionalized
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53004512]I'm legitimately not sure why this is even relevant honestly. If they can still kill big game then what difference does it even make if it's an air rifle or an actual rifle firing bullets?
As with anything, a tool can easily be dangerous. Cars and machinery, for example, are both exceedingly dangerous. They're just usually given a pass by people who are for restricting guns because they aren't intended to kill which is dumb. They're dangerous tools so we take steps to ensure they're operated safely. Guns are no different, they just happen to be designed to kill to begin with so people need to be more cautious with them is all.[/QUOTE]
More cautious like requiring a license, require it to be registered, and require it to be licensed. Oh yeah that's what you do with cars
I also think the whole Russia thing is somewhat overblown while still being a serious issue. Coverage of the whole conspiracy is detracting from a whole mess of serious issues that have more of an effect on American lives. Like that godawful tax plan.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;53005147]More cautious like requiring a license, require it to be registered, and require it to be licensed. Oh yeah that's what you do with cars[/QUOTE]
That's actually largely the case for guns too. The only exceptions are loopholes that really do need to get closed up, shotguns and hunting rifles I think it was (statistically not a very significant part of gun crime to begin with as far as I'm aware), and I believe inheritance laws regarding firearms are a bit lax in a lot of states.
Adequate training would be the more important part in general though. The licensing stuff is mostly only an issue because of lacking mental healthcare, poverty, and our prison system being utter trash and being outright punitive instead of rehabilitative. If we took care of those issues then gun crime would be far far less of an issue. And if we got rid of the different loopholes then it really wouldn't otherwise be an issue either. Also like I think Albert Wesker said earlier on the page (there were a lot of new posts in the thread and I'm having trouble finding it now so I can't quote it) if our background check system wasn't such a pile of shit it would help a lot but politicians keep refusing to fix it up because $$$. (Oh wait, that's basically the primary issue with every facet of this. Mental healthcare and education cost taxpayer money, fixing poverty doesn't benefit the people who fund the politicians, and our prison system is totally ass backwards and largely private run and thus is a freaking business because, again, $$$.)
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53005237]That's actually largely the case for guns too. The only exceptions are loopholes that really do need to get closed up, shotguns and hunting rifles I think it was (statistically not a very significant part of gun crime to begin with as far as I'm aware), and I believe inheritance laws regarding firearms are a bit lax in a lot of states.
Adequate training would be the more important part in general though. The licensing stuff is mostly only an issue because of lacking mental healthcare, poverty, and our prison system being utter trash and being outright punitive instead of rehabilitative. If we took care of those issues then gun crime would be far far less of an issue. And if we got rid of the different loopholes then it really wouldn't otherwise be an issue either. Also like I think Albert Wesker said earlier on the page (there were a lot of new posts in the thread and I'm having trouble finding it now so I can't quote it) if our background check system wasn't such a pile of shit it would help a lot but politicians keep refusing to fix it up because $$$. (Oh wait, that's basically the primary issue with every facet of this. Mental healthcare and education cost taxpayer money, fixing poverty doesn't benefit the people who fund the politicians, and our prison system is totally ass backwards and largely private run and thus is a freaking business because, again, $$$.)[/QUOTE]
You should get something like us, where if you want to privately own a gun you have to be an active member of a gun range for 2+ years where you then can register for a permit to own a weapon (with limitations to what kinds of weapons you can own. Like how you can't own a gun that's less than 21cm in length and such). And if you're a hunter you can get a hunting license which is taken pretty much like a drivers license
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
Or more importantly fix the shit out of your mental health sector. (Something which republicans sure as shit don't feel like)
[QUOTE=nox;53004503][IMG]http://www.bigboreairguns.com/bisonhunt07/stephme.jpg[/IMG]
Modern airguns are capable of up to 600 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle, more than enough for big game hunting. As a bonus, airguns are vastly quieter, ammunition that can be made in the field, air pressure can be hand pumped in a survival situation, they're single shot weapons but generally that's not an issue for hunting.
I won't even go into crossbows, but they're a common tool for African poachers.[/QUOTE]
That's good and all unless you miss or worse, only manage to wound the animal without having any follow up shots. Worst case scenario is you get killed by a pissed off animal.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53005057]If you refuse to even participate in the democratic process, how do you expect anything to change?[/QUOTE]
I've been participating since Bush's second term (had I been 18, I would have voted against Bush). Nothing has changed and this last election cycle was such a major shitshow between voter privacy being compromised, to Pokemon GO TO THE POLLS. How do you expect anything to change when the choices between "the lesser of two evils" keeps getting worse. I'm sick of hearing the old "vote and hope things turn out for the best" meme only for people to then turn around and bitch about not voting for the candidate they want. The sooner people realize that voting for the sake of voting doesn't do shit in the long-run, the better. At this rate, the government will never act in the best interests of the people without everyone pushing for major reforms first, and we will never see reforms if the only two candidates chosen by both parties continues ending up as a battle between who is less shit. We are stuck in a spiral and no one wants to admit it by hanging onto the illusion that these problems can be solved by voting for people who the two parties hand pick to run in a system fueled by money and corruption.
It's a case of things are going to get worse before they get better, since it would take such a large effort by everyone in the country just to get basic reforms passed. Until a large scale political movement pushes hard for government reforms, it's not worth the trouble when being politically active in the current climate will only make you a target without accomplishing anything.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53005063]So you're going to wait until they've stripped you of all your other rights first?[/QUOTE]
More or less depending on which rights are revoked and what means are used to remove them. There is a reason why it's called the FINAL check on government power. I don't think you realize the gravity of the situation which would unfold if it ever had to be invoked.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53005063]Why? 99% of gun-owners I've seen on this forum arguing for keeping them say they're impractical, expensive (as they burn through ammo) and have no practical application, even in a mass-shooting even (which was later proven wrong, of course, in Nevada), that they're "purely for shits and giggles". Besides, all you have to do, according to said gun-owners, is place your fingers in a certain arrangement while holding it from the hip and you can still bump-fire away, so you've effectively lost nothing in terms of how you giggle and shit, while making it all the more difficult for someone who [I]would[/I] attempt to recreate what happened in Nevada.[/QUOTE]
Please at least read the rest of that paragraph. The bill which was proposed was a backdoor ban on semiautomatic weapons using intentionally vague language. It wasn't just limited to bumpfire stocks or binary triggers which wouldn't even exist if the machine gun registry wasn't closed for no damn reason back in 1986. At least if the registry was still open, the shooter would have to go through over a 6 month waiting period while they process his background, take his fingerprints, take his picture and put him in a database to get access to a machine gun. That is if he doesn't just bypass the whole thing by keeping his trigger finger stationary while pushing the rest of the weapon forward. It's not exactly hard to hit something when the target area is that big and you're shooting at a downward angle.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53005063]Last I heard, triggers aren't accessories, they're components.[/QUOTE]
Now you're just arguing semantics. There are triggers which achieve similar fire rates to bump firing, while having better control over the weapon. I feel like this exact topic was beaten to death already in the Las Vegas thread.
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53005237]That's actually largely the case for guns too. The only exceptions are loopholes that really do need to get closed up, shotguns and hunting rifles I think it was (statistically not a very significant part of gun crime to begin with as far as I'm aware), and I believe inheritance laws regarding firearms are a bit lax in a lot of states.
Adequate training would be the more important part in general though. The licensing stuff is mostly only an issue because of lacking mental healthcare, poverty, and our prison system being utter trash and being outright punitive instead of rehabilitative. If we took care of those issues then gun crime would be far far less of an issue. And if we got rid of the different loopholes then it really wouldn't otherwise be an issue either. Also like I think Albert Wesker said earlier on the page (there were a lot of new posts in the thread and I'm having trouble finding it now so I can't quote it) if our background check system wasn't such a pile of shit it would help a lot but politicians keep refusing to fix it up because $$$. (Oh wait, that's basically the primary issue with every facet of this. Mental healthcare and education cost taxpayer money, fixing poverty doesn't benefit the people who fund the politicians, and our prison system is totally ass backwards and largely private run and thus is a freaking business because, again, $$$.)[/QUOTE]
Yeah earlier I was referring to the Texas Church shooter getting hold of a firearm even though he was banned from owning one. All because someone in the air force didn't properly report his criminal history of domestic violence or something. Basically it led him to passing the background check and then going onto shooting several people. It could have been prevented if the laws already in place were actually enforced correctly, but Santa Claus of all people ended up having to stop him with deadly force.
Modern armed revolts don't work very well. Ask the Syrian rebels how well the war is going for them, and the Syrian army is a piece of shit compared to the US.
I'm not arguing against gun control in the states, but that argument really doesn't work.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53005311]That's good and all unless you miss or worse, only manage to wound the animal without having any follow up shots. Worst case scenario is you get killed by a pissed off animal.[/QUOTE]
Have you considered not shooting animals
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005589]Have you considered not shooting animals[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, while some people do just hunt, people living in the middle of fuck-off nowhere do end up having to deal with dangerous animals as well.
Single issue gun rights voters are fucking ridiculous.
You aren't allowed to use the "guns protect our freedom" argument when your voting habits are the single greatest threat to our freedom. You actively vote to fuck over everyone but the wealthy. Your bullshit put a fucking cartoon villain in the oval office.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005589]Have you considered not shooting animals[/QUOTE]
Have you considered trying to be taken seriously? Because this isn't how you do it.
I mean, I've been up close and personal with invasive, destructive wild hogs in the Florida State parks in hunts to keep them from damaging the local area more than they have.
I don't know where people get off on saying "lol just don't kill animals"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.