Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Zoranon]

Looks like a handgun can outgun a so called by some " weapon of war "......https://www.foxnews.com/us/miami-man...obbery-attempt

A Miami man claimed he was forced to "empty" his Glock into a man's chest cavity during a brazen morning robbery attempt on Monday after the gunman pointed an AK-47 into his face and demanded jewelry.

Donovan Stewart, 60, told the city’s CBS affiliate that he was sitting in his van when he was confronted. The N.R.A. member said he was with his son, 11, and girlfriend. He told the station that he is from Kingstontown, Jamaica, and trained at handling a firearm.

“You want to come looking for trouble?” he said. “Come to me. Come to me. I wouldn’t do anything like this to anybody and they picked the wrong person in this case.”

City police told the station that they are investigating, but said it appears to be a case of self-defense.

The gun grabbers will give you one of two answers. they will either claim that this case is an irrelevant anecdote. Or they will accuse they gun owner of murdering the "poor criminal who was starting to turn his life around.

But in the end, it is about power. Anti-gun people tend to be statists. And owning guns meaning you are not wholy dependant on the state. And authoritarians despise people like that...

[Zan15]

You understand how "time" works right? Life in the 18th century was not the same as life today.. conditions were different, people were different, culture was different.. if you knew last week what you know now, you might be a millionaire.. but you're not, because that's not how it works. It's like calling Steve Jobs an idiot for not making an iphone in the 70s. Technology was different.. the conditions of that time made it an impossibility.

This could spiral into a whole conversation about determinism, but slavery ended when conditions were right for slavery to end. Women gaining the right to vote happened when conditions were right for it to happen. I don't think you seem to grasp the complexity of what social and economic conditions are needed for these types of world changing ideas to occur given our violent history and biology. And you talk as if this is something you could do on a Saturday night.

This is the mindset of a progressive in 2019. Fear it..

Glad you agree with me. So basically we are just waiting for conditions to be right...and it seems like we are rightly so heading in the same directions as those in the past.

All it takes is time and change. Its only a matter of time, once the gun toting war mongers known as the baby boomers die off in mass maybe we can really have some meaningful change in this country and the world again.

Funny you think anyone expects this to happen overnight. Just take abortion as an example of how you slowly chip away at something to make it almost impossible in some states to even get. They are slowly taking away the right to an abortion that was protected by a supreme court ruling. Guess those silly progressives will just take from the conservative/religious right playbook to get the job done on guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Segregation was unconstitutional, and considering Trump supporters see themselves as the defenders of the constitution now, I'd say your perception of Trump as this fascist dictator has literally nothing fueling it other than your ignorance and misunderstanding of what a dictator is and how they actually operate.

.

Whoot defenders of the constitution.... Trump is our PROTECTOR....umm right...right??

well except for freedom of press on multiple occasions including "We're going to open up those libel laws..."

freedom of speech, "phony emoluments clause", equal protection of the law (silly brown people), Separation of Powers, Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment....

or maybe freedom of religion "Trump told Fox News that the U.S. government should close mosques"

or maybe you mean Article 12 of the Constitution??? his favorite... (oops there is only 7 articles....never mind.)

or maybe when he said the archaic' US constitution that is 'really bad' for the country....???


Or maybe one on topic? How about this one.

President Trump voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence. “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.



make you wonder what he actually supports and defends?

- - - Updated - - -

America is a delicate balancing act where both the left and the right push against each other so we stay somewhere in the middle. Although the data shows that society is slowly moving more and more left over time, it swings back and forth every now and then, which is normal.

As for everything being "f*&(^cked up" by republicans, you'd have to be more specific. If you're talking about the wars in the middle east, both Democrats and Republicans have plenty of blood on their hands with that one. If you're talking about general corruption in politics, again.. plenty of that to go around for both parties. If you're talking about the economy, Republicans have always done a better job running the economy. Social issues? People tend to agree Democrats are more influential here although I would argue their entire platform operates on simply pandering to the lowest common denominator and shaming the wealthy into paying for it. A good scheme.. until you run out of other people's money.

You mean like running out of other people's money and having to borrow a trillion dollars to pay for a tax cut to those poor "shamed wealthy" people? Not even necessary Trump...Reagan was the best at perfecting this. That's why he still holds the record for the biggest non war debt percentage gain ever at a shocking 184%. Makes Obama's 96% seem meek



For being someone who seems to be an so called expert on history you sure have not boned up on republican vs democrat economic performance have ya??

[Mayhem]

The gun grabbers will give you one of two answers. they will either claim that this case is an irrelevant anecdote. Or they will accuse they gun owner of murdering the "poor criminal who was starting to turn his life around.

But in the end, it is about power. Anti-gun people tend to be statists. And owning guns meaning you are not wholy dependant on the state. And authoritarians despise people like that...

Or and here me out because this could be quite irritating to you, the "gun grabbers" argue that wouldn't it be better if that guy didn't have an AK-47?

Nothing about the gun owner, you read that right, not one word against that gun owner.

[Kellhound]

Or and here me out because this could be quite irritating to you, the "gun grabbers" argue that wouldn't it be better if that guy didn't have an AK-47?

Nothing about the gun owner, you read that right, not one word against that gun owner.

"Wouldn't it be better to trust that criminals will not break the law, and if they do, that the police will do their best to bring justice to your family?"

FYI. if it really was an AK-47, there is almost no chance it was legally owned to begin with.

[Ghostpanther]

The gun grabbers will give you one of two answers. they will either claim that this case is an irrelevant anecdote. Or they will accuse they gun owner of murdering the "poor criminal who was starting to turn his life around.

But in the end, it is about power. Anti-gun people tend to be statists. And owning guns meaning you are not wholy dependant on the state. And authoritarians despise people like that...

Yeah. Good points. But I am glad their opinions have zero impact on myself exercising a Constitutional right.

[Will]

Remove Americans from this thread and 'Yes' would probably have 95-98% 'Yes' respondents.

What an utterly bizarre country.

[Mayhem]

"Wouldn't it be better to trust that criminals will not break the law, and if they do, that the police will do their best to bring justice to your family?"

FYI. if it really was an AK-47, there is almost no chance it was legally owned to begin with.

You guys really crack me up every time someone talks about better gun control. "Can't trust criminals"

Well yeah, that is the fucking point. Apparently you also ignored the second part of my post.

[Ghostpanther]

Remove Americans from this thread and 'Yes' would probably have 95-98% 'Yes' respondents.

What an utterly bizarre country.

I am sure the percentages would be higher for the No's if they removed all the foreign respondents. But we do not get to make the rules on this forum.

[Zoranon]

Or and here me out because this could be quite irritating to you, the "gun grabbers" argue that wouldn't it be better if that guy didn't have an AK-47?

Nothing about the gun owner, you read that right, not one word against that gun owner.

You mean the AK-47 that is already illegal in 99,9 % cases?

I wish gun grabbers like yourself were a little less ignorant about guns, then there could be a debate.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. Good points. But I am glad their opinions have zero impact on myself exercising a Constitutional right.

I wish I had your confidence. But with extremists taking over the dems, things may be less sure than we would like.

[Saucexorzski]

You mean the AK-47 that is already illegal in 99,9 % cases?

I wish gun grabbers like yourself were a little less ignorant about guns, then there could be a debate.

- - - Updated - - -



I wish I had your confidence. But with extremists taking over the dems, things may be less sure than we would like.

Yep, im done debating with these authoritarian malevolent gun grabbers, no matter where they come from. Their desires to disarm folks are of self interest only, and they will never stop until the right to own a firearm is removed. Just like with the pro lifers who see abortion as a sin, so too do the gun grabbers see every gun owner as a criminal. there is no debate to be had with them because there is no debate in their minds, only subservances of those they deem sinners. Only way to persevere this is to stand strong against their tyranny.

[Mayhem]

You mean the AK-47 that is already illegal in 99,9 % cases?

I wish gun grabbers like yourself were a little less ignorant about guns, then there could be a debate.

So how did you come to the conclusion that I was talking about the legality of the weapon when I wrote: "wouldn't it be better if that guy didn't have an AK-47?"

[Zoranon]

So how did you come to the conclusion that I was talking about the legality of the weapon when I wrote: "wouldn't it be better if that guy didn't have an AK-47?"

Because then you would be making even less sense. AK-47 are currently illegal except for a very small number of people. Yet the criminal had one. Thus to use this case to argue for gun control is just dumb.

[Mayhem]

Because then you would be making even less sense. AK-47 are currently illegal except for a very small number of people. Yet the criminal had one. Thus to use this case to argue for gun control is just dumb.

Why? Gun control is also about preventing criminals from obtaining arms.

[Guy4123]

Why? Gun control is also about preventing criminals from obtaining arms.

If it really was the thousands of felons who get pinged on the 4473 would of been thrown in prison for 10 years instead of the maybe 10 a year that do.

[Zan15]

Because then you would be making even less sense. AK-47 are currently illegal except for a very small number of people. Yet the criminal had one. Thus to use this case to argue for gun control is just dumb.

depends on the state, depends on the configuration, depends on the manufacture date, transferable status, etc etc.

its actually not as illegal as you say but it is limited by the stock that is available for sale.

Would be interesting to see where the gun came from and if it was truly illegal.

Most likely its a knock off or stolen from an irresponsible "good guy with a gun" gun owner.

[Zoranon]

depends on the state, depends on the configuration, depends on the manufacture date, transferable status, etc etc.

its actually not as illegal as you say but it is limited by the stock that is available for sale.

Would be interesting to see where the gun came from and if it was truly illegal.

Most likely its a knock off or stolen from an irresponsible "good guy with a gun" gun owner.

Absolutely wrong. Assault rifles (or more generally speaking weapons capable of select fire) are regulated to the point of almost absolute ban by federal gov since 60ties.

Once again, the problems with you gun grabbers is that you don't know anything about guns.

[Svifnymr]

Absolutely wrong. Assault rifles (or more generally speaking weapons capable of select fire) are regulated to the point of almost absolute ban by federal gov since 60ties.

Once again, the problems with you gun grabbers is that you don't know anything about guns.

1934: Register select fire
1968: no more importing select fire
1986: no more manufacturing select fire
Just for reference.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -



I wish I had your confidence. But with extremists taking over the dems, things may be less sure than we would like.

Which is why it is important to be diligent in our opposition to them. No matter which party you prefer.

[Kellhound]

You guys really crack me up every time someone talks about better gun control. "Can't trust criminals"

Well yeah, that is the fucking point. Apparently you also ignored the second part of my post.

Well, how about addressing the criminal use of guns before restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

[Mayhem]

Well, how about addressing the criminal use of guns before restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Please show me where I was talking about restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens?

- - - Updated - - -

If it really was the thousands of felons who get pinged on the 4473 would of been thrown in prison for 10 years instead of the maybe 10 a year that do.

I don't understand half of the words you're using, sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Because then you would be making even less sense. AK-47 are currently illegal except for a very small number of people. Yet the criminal had one. Thus to use this case to argue for gun control is just dumb.

There are 1505 results on armslist for AK-47.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but that doesn't illegal for a very small number of people.