Several Wins for Pro-2nd Amendment Campaigners! - Open Carry, 3D Printed, ect. - Polidicks

Becasue in all honesty that has not affected a large majority of the people, and in terms of going and having a coup is insignificant.

I think its mostly the people who say they love the 2nd amendment for coup purposes are on the same side as the people committing the acts.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the creeps who back Trump have violent fantasies about overthrowing a liberal government. That doesn't mean everyone who backs 2A is behind Trump. Do you think it's time for an armed insurrection? I don't.

Or people realize that starting a conflict that will likely end in thousands dead is a bad idea unless absolutely necessary. The civil war itself had a death toll of 620 thousand people. You think that we're at that level of necessity?

Good job guys, never said we were at that level, just pointed out majority of them ive seen use the coup excuse are okay wjth the bad shit happening. Besides, we could have a total regime change and they would still back them as long as they are "patriots".

Well I fucked up then. I wasn't trying to say that, I was just trying to tell the dude that he shouldn't be afraid of the customers that come to the place he works at. I was trying to tell him that they wouldn't just shoot the place up if they had a gun or anything like that. Like I said in that other post I'm terrible at arguments and getting my points across. I wasn't trying to say all laws should be abolished or that gun bans would or wouldn't stop gun crime.

A gun ban would have an effect on gun crime, but it wouldn't have enough of an effect to make it worth the impact it'd have on the 99.999999% of people who use guns in the manner proscribed by law. It probably wouldn't have a significant effect on the rate of assault or attempted murders, if the crime stats of the UK and Australia are anything to go by. Different types of weapons would be used, less lethal in many circumstances, but the actual impulse to commit violence hasn't been addressed. I can't speak for the UK off the top of my head but I do recall that Australia's crime rate was already descending when the gun ban was enacted after which it spiked and then continued descending at the same rate it had already been descending at, which to me indicates that the ban had no measurable impact on the overall rate of violent crime. I believe the UK's stats are similar but it's been a while since I've looked at them and I'm not going to say so authoritatively. There are measures that would have an effect - things we can target that have been conclusively linked to crime, such as the ever-repeated poverty issue. The amount of cash that has been burned on study after study that time and time again fail to conclusively link the availability of guns directly to the crime rate would be far better allocated to finding ways to attack poverty in this country. This constant back and forth reminds me a lot of one of my favorite global warming political cartoons: https://i.imgur.com/Dv6YajL.jpg What if we slash poverty, improve education, fight social stigmas about seeking help, set up a proper mental health system, and deal with crooked three letter agencies passing out guns to every cartel who claims to hate communism for nothing? If it comes down to it and we've tried everything else and made the country better in so many ways and there's still epidemic violence then we can take a look at extreme measures. But in the meantime there's so many more things we could be looking at that have been linked to violent crime rates.

Its funny you pull that comic when the same could be said for guns too.

Could you explain why you think this so we can actually have a conversation or are you going to leave it at that?

You could easily lump something like guns/alcohol/recreational drugs as things we technically don't need and would ultimately lower abuse of all three, just like green energy. Like say if alcohol just up and disappeared, drunk driving would go along with it, same with a lower public intoxication rate. Same with guns and drug related violence/misuse. Im trying to say, comparing something that is flatout beneficial to everyone to something that is beneficial to only people who use it, is a dumb comparison.

The premise of the cartoon is that taking measures to fight global warming is beneficial to everyone even if climate change is somehow a hoax or misunderstood, so those things are worth doing. In the same vein, the things I mentioned would improve society as a whole, making life better for millions of Americans by reducing overall crime (and gun crime by extension), strengthening the economy, improving education, making social interactions overall more positive, etc. while also achieving the goal of reducing gun crime as a side effect. Even if afterward it turns out that there is another source of gun crime, we have still made the country better, so the comparison works. With regards to banning alcohol, recreational drugs and so on, I have used that in an argument recently: https://i.gyazo.com/2654ec01722a4e1446cd30e0f4421962.png

But you already have the same people with green energy with people who want big ass trucks with no emission standards. What about their liberty to drive what they want. Everything could be put into that comic to fit your narrative, just like guns could be tossed in and to people who don't own or care about guns, it would seem like a no brainer to just remove them as a overall benefit to lower the chance of being shot (not saying I would mind you).

I personally don't have an issue with the idea of deeper background checks but the reason these things are argued against so vehemently comes down to the way US politics work. The bipartisan nature of our political arena ultimately means no matter what there are only two viable candidates in any election. The fact that it is easier to drive the two sides of the spectrum apart than it is to bring them together, plus the fact that every election comes down to one red or one blue, means that politics are becoming increasingly extremist. Let me phrase this in another way. You may not want a total ban on guns. You may even be completely indifferent and not care about guns at all. But you're left leaning I assume so you'll probably vote blue in any given election because democratic politicians tend to espouse most of your views. And that's fine, that's not your fault, that's the way politics are in this country. So let's say an assault weapons ban passes. This hypothetical AWB might be all you want. Now you're satisfied with the state of gun laws in this country. But because our political system offers no nuance, inevitably a candidate who is tougher on guns will come up. Maybe not immediately. It might be another 8 years. But when he comes along, you are at least neutral on guns and at most actively against them so you aren't going to vote for a red politician who wants to relax the laws - regardless of your own views, you're going to vote for the inevitable blue politician who wants to take more. In this way, the right to bear arms in America is slowly eroded over time. This is exactly the pattern that we see all the way back to 1934 with the National Firearms Act. You may not personally support a complete ban but the political situation in this country will force you to vote for someone who does. Sorry if this post reads kind of scattered, my focus is heavily divided at work right now.

The reason I vote for dems is because I rather have a functioning democracy than a facist corrupt government in charge. Ive seen people here who said they rather toss their guns in the trash than let republicans destroy the nation further.

Ultimately if it came down to it so would I but I don't think we're there yet and I don't think we have to reach that point. I am trying my damndest to make constructive conversation happen wherever I go and I'm hoping that others doing the same can make a difference in the political conversation in this country.

I'd love to vote Dem too, but I can't vote for either party because they're so fundamentally broken and have such arbitrary attributes to them that it's impossible to vote for either of them in good conscious. While Dems may be better at tackling social issues that I agree needs tackling, I cannot vote for a Dem that spouts the same false rhetoric about guns that is so commonly pushed upon by their side. Ultimately I would like a system where I won't have to play game theory where I lose in every scenario, and I'd rather not give up my means of self-preservation just because I don't want a giant douche over a turd sandwich.

And to me tbh thats extremely childish. You are jeopardizing any chance of another party ever getting power just because one might be able to take your guns. You are sacrificing basically 100 rights over a single right. The system is flawed, but you're advocating for a party that doesn't want anyone but themselves having complete power over everything, including the 3rd parties you'd like to see.

So many gun control laws were started from racist intentions like in california. Honestly, I wish there wasn't a 2nd amendment, but since there is, I've started to be mostly fine with it. I think the democrats could get a lot more needed support if dropped the gun control pearl clutching angle and went full on to supporting better social safety nets, you know, things that actually help reduce crime and gun deaths. I'm glad the candidate in my district is running under mostly bernie platforms but is also pro gun, it'd be kinda politically suicidal to be anti gun in northern maine.

Re-read my post. I'm not advocating for any party. And guns aren't the only issue I disagree with Dems on.

Being inactive and allowing repubs to keep their majority, will allow them to keep it solely to their party. And what else do you disagree on exactly?

How many times are you going to stick your fingers in your ass (because evidently that is where your head is located) and go “la la la I can’t hear you” before you fall off that high horse due to depriving your brain of oxygen?

I'm not allowing shit. I refuse to participate in a broken system where I lose 100% of the time. This is the same reasoning the Reps use to shill their side to people like me because they also can't get their fucking shit together. It's fucking dumb. I'm also fed up with Dems' inability to flush out their hypocrisy because while they may push for a progressive economic policy that could help alleviate wealth inequality, they're no stranger to lobbyists paying them top dollar to do their bidding that achieves the opposite effect.

And again, with the current climate, republicans are rigging the entire system for only their benefit. Not voting at all is a dumb outlook to how you want the system fixed ffs. Its not going to fix it's self when the people in power are making it harder and harder to fix. Like you want it your way, but refuse to participate, which is idiotic. Also voting means voting old block democrats out too like NY with Cortez being a democratic socialist.

So I should vote Democrat to solve the problem of there only being a two party system?

Should vote anyone who isn't rigging the entire system for solely their benefit if you actually want change. Last I checked, democrats aren't gerrymandering states or pressing more and more voter restrictions. Again, you can vote new-age people into office to throw out the corporate shills if that was a concern, or elect more rational gun rights supporters. I don't know what hole you've been in the past 15 years, but states are getting rigged to shit with horrible voting districts that no one but a republican voice gets heard. That includes whatever 3rd party you want. I mean sure, don't do anything and just bitch and moan while clutching your gun hoping it will be used someday, but I rather act now than wonder what will happen later when the situation is totally FUBAR. Like you keep preaching how you want a 3rd party, but don't vote, nor will you try to even stop the current party that is actively making sure they are the only party. Your logic makes absolutely no sense and just seems like you rather whine about the democrats maybe being able to snatch your gun or having lobbyist, than the elephant in the room that is destroying american relations/trade/democracy while patting your pretty little head saying "don't worry, I won't take your guns". 10 or so years down the line if republicans can snag a supreme majority via gerrymandering, supreme court bias, and total control over the 3 branches , who's to say they will just snag the gun platform entirely and do the same thing the democrats are doing now.

it quite literally would cause the total dissolution of the republican party if they did that.

"If you truly believe drinking 5 glasses of water a day makes you healthy, why dont you go drink an entire ocean and see if that makes you healthy?" Of course taking an idea to its absolute most extreme makes it sound dumb. But maybe how about you dont misrepresent an aargument in the most disingenuous manner possible.

That is the goal yes. It would be neat if we had a right wing party that was the democrats, and an actual left wing party. Like the rest of the developed world. Even then though you'll find that leftists are quite a bit more pro-gun than liberals. I don't think the antigun lobby will have much support the next decade or so.

You have no idea what you're talking about. We ban murder because murder unjustly kills people. We want to ban guns because guns may be used to murder. The issue is still murder. It's murder that we want to prevent, and some people think banning guns will stop it. But guns without murder are not a problem. The problem with banning guns to deter murder is that if someone is willing to commit murder then they will have no problem owning a gun, but someone who owns a gun is not necessarily going to murder. We make the actual problem illegal. Nobody wants to make murder legal. Jesus.

First off, I voted in the 2016 election, so you can stop accusing me of letting Reps do what they want. If the Dems can miraculously pull a not copy-pasted textbook shady politician for 2020, then I'll gladly vote for them. Secondly, I've moved recently so I haven't gotten the chance to assess who I want in local/state office yet. Thirdly, I don't clutch my guns hoping I get to use them one day. Self-preservation is important to me but I'm not a fucking nutjob. You can fuck off with the condescension as well, thanks. I'm fully aware of the shitshow that Reps are putting on, and it's thanks to them for being utter shit and thanks to the Dems for fucking it up by thinking Hillary fucking Clinton was their best shot. What an absolute fucking joke. I know you know people became disillusioned with this election, so why the fuck are you up my ass with this holier-than-thou attitude as if I had anything to do with any of this shit? Fuck out of here. I don't have to prove myself to you.