0
51

[–] Alopix 0 points 51 points (+51|-0) ago 

First prove the laws we have are based on objective reality and not feefees

Hint: the laws we have will not pass this simple test

0
50

[–] Shekelstein6M 0 points 50 points (+50|-0) ago 

First prove that the laws we have do not violate the constitution.

1
12

[–] XSS1337 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

I would buy both of you drinks gentlemen .... +1 all around

1
-1

[–] Mytempacct20171001 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Some of you 2nd Amendment extremists have such a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Its like it were written by people who had jist successfully rebelled against their own government.

For insight on this topic I suggest you try to find a group of women who doesnt own guns and ask them about it.

4
-4

0
13

[–] EatingSteak 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Two proof-of-concept examples for an idea:

  • The War on Terror
  • The War on Drugs

Idea: you can't just make something bad disappear by making it illegal

Every new law/rule/restriction is giving up a small slice of your freedom for something - so what is that something? It's not "to make guns go away" or some wishy-washy goal

You want a desired outcome - presumably you want to be safer, or reduce gun violence or something. So, you ask yourself two questions:

  • What is the desired outcome
  • What is your policy's efficacy toward that outcome?

Bonus points for using precedent and justifying that this previous example would also apply here.

I am pro gun-rights, but I like to think I keep an open mind. So my 'open-mindedness' is here: show me an example of the above working - a successful gun-control policy working. Not to suggest that one couldn't, but it's been tried enough in the past that I'm not going to take some new attempt at face value

0
3

[–] midnight_rider 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

To your point, if every crime committed with a gun caused the convicted felon to be given life or the death penalty it would reduce gun violence far more than laws concerning firearms themselves. It's obvious they really don't want to reduce gun violence as this would be the first fucking thing to do.

0
0

[–] WanderingMitten 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Bro. you're forgetting the best example. Alcohol Prohibition. What did this result in? More Booze options, illegal business practices and gangsters focusing on the illegal sale of alcohol to profit off of.

We've known for a long time this shit doesn't work but the people in power are sick fucks who just want the ability to control people and tell them what they can and can't do.

3
0

[–] lexsird 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here and put forth a measure of gun control and the structure needed for it.

A national Carry and Concealed Carry permit that has all the liberties of carrying your firearms but with the caveat of you being trained and financially responsible.

You'll need to be insured and instructed in the use of the weapon by a certified instructor. You'll carry only weapons that have a chip with your license ID and each weapon will be registered to your ID.

Life without parole for, owning, possessing, using non chipped guns. Grace period to get your guns chipped. You can sell, buy, trade guns, but they have to be chipped and the chip has to be updated upon sale or trade.

This is also an aspect of the new National ID Card that has a chip with this data and more. This can be tied to your smart device and to your 'smart gun'. (Future tech may result in a combination of your smart device and your gun.)

Of course those with National ID will have access to the new US Digital Currency Bitcoin of which all government payments are made by.

Welcome to the modern digital era citizen, we look forward to your participation in making our nation great again.

0
5

[–] belrial 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Fine example, James Earl Ray killed MLK, some nigs say the FBI hired, made, whatever him do it. In 1968 they passed the GCA which made felons ineligible to buy a gun. Guess who comprises the largest group of felons per capita? And they are all for disarming further which puts the man more in charge. Just ignorant.

0
3

[–] speedisavirus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Definitely not the ones where I live.

0
20

[–] Bill_Murrays_Sandals 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Gowdy 2024

23
-22

0
14

[–] BAAC 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

This. This is the key point.

Obama asked for more and more gun laws, all the while enforcement in places like Chicago were dropping like a rock. In Chicago in 2014, more than 2,500 people were shot – 400 killed – during the commission of various crimes. Police seized 6,252 guns, most of them illegal. How many gun charges did federal prosecutors push? 62. Yup, 62. If you want to be generous, that’s about 1%. And Chicago isn’t unique. According to research by Syracuse University, gun crime prosecutions across the US dropped every year under Obama, hitting an all-time low in 2015. In fact, they were 34.8% lower than in 2004 under Bush.

Don't ask for more laws until you enforce the ones you have.

0
8

[–] speedisavirus 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Enforcement in Baltimore is practically non existent and it's coming from the judges. The (republican) governor is running them over the coals for not enforcing gun crime statute sentencing with the ghetto animals. He has also retracted funding for committees that fail to do anything about any of this despite it being their purpose. Now if we can get that at a federal level...and review the laws on the books for common sense we could get somewhere.

0
2

[–] Cat-hax 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Because that would be racsists.

0
0

[–] hypercat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They don't have the time or the money to prosecute. Solution? Take away gun + automatic fine. Can't get drivers license or their EBT. Make the fine payable, but still steep. Like $1,000. And have them do community service if they can't pay it. So you get either 1k for the city coffers, or you get like 80 hours of free city work teaching homeboys to have some manners. make them volunteer in old folks home cleaning up dirty diapers.

0
1

[–] greenfascist 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Sounds more civil than a lynching, but I bet we see lynchings before community service.

0
11

[–] 10702717? 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

self-defense is the purvey of individual agency, and the individual themselves.

neither the state nor the federal government has the right, nor the capability, to protect everyone all of the time.

the government does not tell me when or how to defend myself in a time of crisis. especially when the government is the threat.

0
6

[–] Butelczynski 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Canadian Government strongly disagrees with that yet they can't and won't protect everyone. In case of Ontario Government. they refused protecting citizens number of times with Caledonia stand off being the largest example.

0
3

[–] 10703171? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The bigger problem is that the government has the power to selectively protect people based on their political views, religion, race, etc. See San Jose, Berkeley.

0
1

[–] hypercat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

OMG, the Mexican march a few years back, I could literally not get out of the fucking city of San Jose. Like I was trapped in my truck. I had to go to like 4 different freeway exits to find anything that was open.

0
0

[–] 10705297? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

noted and saved

0
3

[–] Cat-hax 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Only after you defend yourself they tell you "you should of done this"

0
8

[–] CervicalStrike 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Even if an attack like this, of this scale were to happen every single day of the year, not even that would be worth giving up the guns. As long as we have a system in which politicians are in power, it is vitally important that they think about this in the back of their minds when they weigh to what extent they can get away with treason.

In Western Europe, they're going fuckin WHOLE HOG self-destruct mode and they would not be able to do this if the people there had their own 2A.

0
0

[–] UchihaMadara 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

and they would not be able to do this if the people there had their own 2A.

I don't know about that. They were left for a long time, and kept being smug about how "tolerant" and "open-minded" they were until they were blind-sided. Europe's been cucked since at least World War 2.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
-2

[–] hwe4jetdjnzsdetjn 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

0
6

[–] aaronC 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

No guns are illegal, just undocumented. We need to open up the borders for weapons to come in. We have to fight gunphobia, it's 2017 people. You can't just choose which guns are allowed and which aren't, that's gunist.

You can't judge all guns from the actions of a few bad apples, that's gunophobic and bigoted.

0
1

[–] SmokeyMeadow 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's like, what if a semi-automatic weapon identifies as full-auto? Shouldn't they be allowed to transition?

0
4

[–] sakuramboo 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Get rowdy with Gowdy!

load more comments ▼ (17 remaining)