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

Except me and Gran agreed overall on the complete message, and im more blaming apathetic voters if anything or people willing to vote for someone as terrible as trump solely for their guns. Stop acting like a child like the last time you spread your ass in front of everyone. If your entire life revolves around a single right over tons of other rights that affect even the most basic livable conditions, then I'm sorry we are not on the same page at all. I personally never interact with weapons, But I don't have an issue with them. On the other hand, Wages are stagnant as shit, housing and cost of living is climbing constantly, minority rights are being slashed, trump is sending kids to fucking cages with republicans just shaking their heads and following along, and now we have another election coming with the entire republican platform not caring about big daddy Russia interfering. All these issues are affecting my life personally and/or the future of the country. If all this horrendous shit is STILL making you want to vote republican over the off chance of dems pushing for control, it just seems like you're completely out of touch with reality. I don't even know why i should explain this to you because you can't think 5 steps ahead to what is going down with the country other than gun rights (which is exactly what the repubs want). Still egging on the crooked Hilary bit. I wanted Bernie to win, hated the DNC for pushing Hilary more, but you're buying right into Russian hands. DNC isn't actively fucking becoming an fascist state with a Russian puppeteer guiding them along from behind the scenes. My point was Republican politicians don't give a shit about your gun rights, they only care about snagging people like you who put that right above all else. As soon as they are done with you, you'll watch them take your guns like the democrats would even try to. You're telling me the party that has already been caught working with Russians, throwing illegals into cages and splitting their kids for fun, giving even more tax cuts to the rich while gutting public programs, increasing the defense budget even more while cutting public healthcare, and having the balls to personally say immigrants from shithole countries should fuck off are less morally reprehensible. You can sit there all you want saying the democrats may be planning something or are hiding some big project to take all your guns overnight, none of it is proven other than trying to pass gun control bills that fall flat majority of the time and pushing a dumb bitch into candidacy. Comparing that to all the shit I just listed, it makes you look like a sociopath. Self-preservation is being able to put food on the table or pay for some kind of shelter. I don't see how guns fit into that category unless you live in the middle east or Detroit. Because if you want to bitch about the system being rigged, but refuse to remove the people rigging it then that's on you. You keep saying how you want someone else than D or R which is great. You wont get that choice if the R keeps rigging it for the R to always win via gerrymandering or passing restrictive laws that solely benefit them and not the 3rd parties.

No, self-preservation isn't just providing food and shelter for yourself. It also encompasses self-defense when you have no other options, and guns are the ultimate equalizer for those who cannot defend themselves physically in every single scenario. Self-preservation is when you have to defend yourself in your home when police are 30 minutes away and you have one or more invaders who want to do what god only knows. I never said the system was rigged. I said that Dems and Reps are massive fuck-ups. I just want someone who isn't a massive fuck-up. That is all.

Ironic that you'd misrepresent my argument by accusing me of doing the very same thing. I'm not taking the idea to its most extreme. There's no distinction at all between gun laws and other laws in the original argument. The gist of it was "gun laws are useless because criminals don't follow laws". You can use this argument on basically any law, which is absurd, which is my point. Not that I'd expect any less misconstruing from you, anyhow.

Murder is against the law because murder is an intrinsic moral wrong, an act that objectively causes societal damage which must be prosecuted. We didn't make murder illegal as a deterrence, we codified the illegality of murder to specify the consequences of committing murders of different degrees as well as exceptions in which killing someone is considered justifiable. A magazine capacity restriction serves no purpose unless you think having 14 rounds in your magazine as opposed to 10 causes objective societal harm. The law isn't going to prevent ne'er-do-wells from obtaining and using standard capacity magazines, it's just going to make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals who will then be pointlessly prosecuted for possessing an inert object that has been legal since its invention in 1898.

You're argument makes perfect sense in a country that is not saturated in firearms. Right now the US has more guns than people, and by making any additional laws all you are doing is harming the law abiding citizen. So the next step would be confiscation, which is like asking the US to have a civil war over who's gun gets to hold 20 and whose gets to hold 6. Even then, assuming that large amounts of bloodshed does not ensue over the government taking guns from people, you are still looking at 300+ million firearms in the country, with an uncountable total of billions of rounds of ammo thrown throughout. Maybe if the NFA might have gone the way you seem to hope back in 1934 those concepts might have stood a chance, but considering the pure amount of saturation and the sheer dedication of those who support the 2nd nothing short of another civil war will change what you're asking for.

I don't get this strategy of wanting to ban guns, it's not gonna get you votes, it's a nonstrategy. You could learn something from republicans and their dogwhistles. Medicare for all, and eventually basic income, will bring people out of the ruts that result in gun crime. As long as the GOP is a presence, you need to play the politics game and work to get power . Being pro gun control will never actually help anything and you're just throwing away voters. All the criminals can already get guns illegally, Restricting sales to people with mental health issues is fair but I'm pretty sure that already happens (correct me if I'm wrong). Platforming on gun control is missing the forest for the trees. It's an easy feelgood thing to platform on but the issues that actually reduce gun crime get ignored, since the only alternative to the far right GOP right now is the center-right neoliberal democratic party.

But the original argument is about any form of legislation on guns, not specifically magazine restrictions, as I've already pointed out. Specifically, it said that outright banning guns would change absolutely nothing. This is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't see what any of this has to do with my argument. My argument was that the line of logic used by the original poster was fallacious, because it could be used just as well on any other laws to claim they are useless. I have no idea why we're still talking about this when the original poster themselves admitted that they made a bad point.

it is many thousands of times easier to change the party platform than it is to convince millions of people to change their view on firearms rights. as it stands, the democratic party is obstructing the possibility of fixing the issues you have listed by planting their stake into the hill of gun control and dying on it.

Woops, missed this gem. Nothing I said mentioned anything about making murder legal. No need to get so up in arms about my adressing a logical fallacy in a poster's argument which he recognized as such. Seriously, are you guys actually missing the point I'm making or are you being purposefully obtuse while counting on this forum being a pro-gun circlejerk to get people to agree with you despite making no coherent point of your own?

conversations are fluid and points made can be leaping off points into other pools of discussion. sometimes, especially with multiple participants, a misinterpretation can lead to a change in the direction of the flow of conversation, perhaps ones more interesting than calling out someone for an instance of poor communication.

If you want to bounce on another poster's point to make another, tangential one, don't blow at them like Cyke lon bee or Geel did. That's strawmanning, not furthering the discussion. They're basically just virtue signalling to other pro-gun posters, they don't give a shit about my argument or actually disproving it. They simply want to feel validated. Compare with Grenadiac and Unclejimmema who at least stay civil and bring up constructed points, even if they're not directly related to my post.

So allow reps to just rig the game entirely so its impossible for someone who isn't a fuck up to get power. Man what great logic there boyo. I'm giving up because apparently people are so entrenched with their guns that they will allow the entire country to falter over them or go on to defend the horrible shit repubs have done because "well at least i got my guns" or "hillary was a dumb candidate and the DNC are dumb". All the while repubs are making sure they are the only victors possible over everyone, not just dems and especially any third parties.

I didnt misrepresent anything, I gave you an example as to why takinf an argument to its most extreme to discredit it is foolish. Tone down the ass frustration, nobody cares if you get butthurt because your arguments are consistently defeated. People didnt vote for Trump exclusively for guns. Quit being butthurt because you got proven wrong, dont say I'm "spreading my ass" because Im calling you out on your nonsense. My entire life doesnt revolve around firearms but the right is incredibly important to me, and I firmly believe that it and the 1st ammendment are the foundational rights of this country, and the democrats seem to be uninterested in protecting either. They honestly seem more interested in infracturing both of them. Quit incriminating me because I dont agree with you. Quit blaming me for the country's woes because I dont vote the same way as you. Cut your petty nonsense out and grow the hell up dood. Ill quit pushing that Hillary is a criminal when you quit being a drama queen and keep pushing the fascism myth. Grow up. Republicans care about few things but guns are one of them. The entire party isnt bought and sold or owned by the Russians, so quit being a dramatic wuss. Yea like I said before, fuck off kid. Quit incriminating me because youre butthurt about the election. I didnt vote for Trump and I didnt want him to win either, calling me a sociopath for choosing Morally Corrupt Party A over Morally Corrupt Party B is childish. So yea, fuck off and grow up. Find another boogieman to blame your troubles on.

Good thing that's not what I've done here, then. Applying a line of logic to similar situations =/= taking an argument to its extremes. Ah, yes. "Consistently defeated". Of course, if you say so it's obviously true. Not everybody enjoys being an agressive asshole like you seem to, you know. Some actually take the time to construct arguments and I'd rather listen to them than have a cunt blow up at my face because I hurt his feelings by being remotely critical about his hobby. My post was neither of those, but of course by pretending to be tired of responding to me you can avoid justifying that they are. Textbook drive-by shitposting. If you don't think my posts have value ignore them and let the grown-ups talk instead of peddling blatant lies.

It was a cut and dried strawman my dude. Ive constructed nice and cordial arguments with you before, you just end up sticking your fingers in your ear to ignore logic so you can make another emotional appeal to discredit my position. Nobody's feelings are upset here. Quit trying to discredit me by pretending I'm angry or aggressive. If you want to write off your past defeats as me just shitposting then thats fine. I wont bug ya anymore since you dont have an interest in losing anymore arguments to me either.

^ Pot, meet kettle. Consider reading this post: Which is the OP himself saying that he "fucked up" in response to my, according to you, "strawman". You think he'd do this if he thought I was misconstruing his first post? Either you come back to the same reality as the rest of us, or you stop spewing shit whenever you press the reply button on one of my posts. Your choice. "Nice and cordial arguments" my ass.

I don't really want to get into this argument, because it's endless. And as much as I hate single issue voters, the Democrats are the problem here. If they didn't have an literally unreasonable, unfounded, illogical stance on guns they wouldnt have created single issue voters. By creating uninformed, useless and regressive policies that harm legal, law abiding, good Samaritan gun owners, the democratic party single handedly created a voting block of "Single issue voters". In all honesty, a huge whack of the problems in the US that exist today? They're because the democrats wanted to do something noble, but enacted it in a completely inefficient, and failed manner which leads to greater issues down the road.

Sorry but I think you’re also missing the point, granted they didn’t really communicate it very well. The point they were trying to make was that ignorant/malicious politicians and groups are running with the narrative that guns are only a means of murder and contribute nothing to society. As a result, the only legislation being proposed has consistently been feel good measures based on ignorance and the fallacy that less gun restrictions = more deaths. The point they were making was no amount of gun legislation will prevent gun violence in any notable capacity if it is bad legislation. Right now the only voices which matter on proposing gun regulations are also the ones who consistently push for bad legislation. Virtually everything which has been proposed only targets legal gun owners while doing nothing to hinder the proliferation of illegal firearms or even address any causes of gun violence. The majority of the problem isn’t that it’s too easy for people to get guns legally, but that it’s too easy for people to get guns ILLEGALLY. People aren’t trying to pass gun control measures; they’re trying to pass anti gun owner legislation.

I get this point, and it may be what the original poster meant. But that's not what his post said, and that's what I was addressing. Regarding this part: This assumes that there's no relation between legal gun ownership and illegal gun ownership. That's not true, since the majority of illegally owned guns were legally owned at some point. As a result any legislation aimed at curbing illegal ownership will have to affect legal ownership to some extent. For instance, laws aiming to reduce would have to enforce stricter safety rules for gun owners (like requiring the use of safes). I feel I should also point out that not all gun crimes are necessarily committed with illegally obtained guns.

Most states have laws in regards to storage of firearms on the books, and federally it's been the law that all guns must be locked up in the presence of children in the home. In that regard such laws are largely unenforceable, unless you want to violate the 4th in the name of safety. With that being said criminals are more than willing to go great lengths to steal fitearms, with hundreds of stories of robbers breaking into well secured gun stores and homes. Hell half the time they don't even bother trying to open the safe, they just take it and worry about opening it later. I had a customer who had his 2300lb gun safe that was bolted to the floor stolen right out of his house while he was at work, people posing as contractors simply broke in with heavy tools and all and nobody batted an eye. There's already plenty feel good legislation on the books in regards to what you're asking for, we don't need another law that's going to violate our other rights to help you sleep at night.

Meh, American ignorance is a magical force. Let them get on with it. I just wish we'd give US shootings their own subforum so they stop blocking up SH.

Dont forget your hazmat suit when you go outside tomorrow

Don't worry about me, I sleep well enough at night as it is. US gun rights issues don't exactly affect me.

Sleep tight dont let the AK's bite

The snark I see displayed by those who feel they have the moral high ground is contrary to your goals in this discussion. Most Americans aren’t afraid of gun violence because the risk is statistically quite low, unless you’re black and live in poverty your chances of getting shot are less than getting hit by lightning.

It's not supposed to be snark. I just don't see why I would be affected by this considering I don't live in the country in question. I assume most Americans don't lose sleep over it either.

Then whats the fucking point of posting in the first place

You also don't understand what I posted. I don't think it was very difficult to understand. For _Axel, I'll make it very clear: You're asking "why have any laws then?" in response to the claim that "banning guns won't change anything because criminals will already break the law." The point that you're either intentionally missing or are too blinded by rhetoric to see is that owning a gun by itself in no way harms someone. Therefore, making it illegal does nothing but deter people who don't actually want to harm people. If someone is willing to harm someone, which carries a higher sentence already, they will not be deterred by laws that prevent them from owning the tool to do so.

Would you fuckers knock it off for one thread with the condescending bullshit? All you're doing is acting like a prick.

I guess that's what you get when your government isnt in cohorts with Russia.