Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Noxx79]

It would be more effective at saving lives than gun control, so you should be pushing for it.

And gassing non-violent protestors because someone committed a crime the night before is A-OK!

[Kellhound]

So you have no problem with “innocents” being “punished” by rules affecting gun ownership.

So let’s not hear any more about “punishing” legal gun owners.

When are you going to turn yourself into to thecops because someone committed a crime in your neighborhood.

Thanks!

I have significant issue with non-criminals being punished by laws enacted in the name of combating crime.

That is what gun control is though, punishing all for the acts of a few.

That makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

And gassing non-violent protestors because someone committed a crime the night before is A-OK!

Again, transient violation. And tear gas is just tear gas, not VX.

[Noxx79]

I have significant issue with non-criminals being punished by laws enacted in the name of combating crime.

That is what gun control is though, punishing all for the acts of a few.

That makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, transient violation.

Yet you approved of it. You said they deserved to be gassed because someone committed a crime the night before.

Are you finally admitting the constitution was indeed violated?

Because that would go against your bloodthirsty declaration that the cops should stay out of protests and allow you and your gun nuts to murder peaceful protestors.

[Kellhound]

Yet you approved of it. You said they deserved to be gassed because someone committed a crime the night before.

Are you finally admitting the constitution was indeed violated?

Because that would go against your bloodthirsty declaration that the cops should stay out of protests and allow you and your gun nuts to murder peaceful protestors.

I neither approved or disapproved of it, just stated it was a transitory violation for the courts to decide if it was justified.

That is a far more broad statement than asking about a single amendment.

I have said nothing of the sort.

[Noxx79]

Nah just make it a gun control law. i'm sure criminals will follow it.

So murder should be legal.

[Eviscero]

It would be more effective at saving lives than gun control, so you should be pushing for it.

Claims based on feels are fun.

Your analogy is stupid. Mandatory background checks on guns is sensible and basically what is already done everywhere: looking up driving record before issuing a license to drive.

Pro tip: when you resort to analogy instead of data, it's easy to spot that you're full of shit.

[Zan15]

It would be more effective at saving lives than gun control, so you should be pushing for it.

Manditory insurance already exist for cars and they already at least force breathalyzers on convicted drunk drivers.

Now can we do the same for guns, then we will get back to pushing for more on cars.

and btw you know ya can do more than one thing at a time right?

[Mayhem]

I didn't mean it was better punishment from the view of the criminal. I really don't care about the well being of violent felons.

So how is it better then? What was your point?

Internet doesn't help if background checks are used to keep transactions in limbo intentionally. It also doesn't seem to help if you have either very common or very odd full names.

Sure it does, I can sign documents with a government app on my phone. Make an automated system with a registry that can only be looked into by law enforcement if a judge gives the order to do so. Automated documentation that civilians can look into themselves with the required access code so that you yourself can look it up if you might get in contact with the police or fear prosecution. Every sale would be registered, every purchase would be registered, every gun lost or stolen would be registered. It would immensely help law enforcement.

Why do you think transactions are kept in limbo?

The very term "cope" denotes negative impact on those affected. Since I was referring to negative impact, my comment stands.

So almost every law or regulation has a negative effect on law-abiding citizens then, cool ok, that's just how it is or else society wouldn't work. It would be awesome if we could just trust everyone doing the right thing but that's just not how it works.

A certain amount of people will be dissuaded, the rest punished. And thank you for admitting that gun control is not what keeps crime from happening.

People got their hands chopped off for stealing do you think that stopped theft? What you get with harsher punishments for lesser crimes is criminals rather getting rid of witnesses than risk being caught because the punishment is virtually the same and law-abiding citizens fearing others will accuse them of something they didn't commit. It's a very useful tool for authoritarian governments to get their citizens to monitor each other.

Gun control keeps the crimes from escalating, so fewer people die. I never once said gun control keeps crimes from happening, and I don't remember anyone else ever saying this so no idea what you think I was admitting.

[Zython]

I live in a blue college town, in a blue state, in New England.

And you don’t know the difference between liberals and anarchists? I’ve heard of social distancing, but this is ridiculous.

[the game]

Australians speaking about about gun control

[Kellhound]

Claims based on feels are fun.

Your analogy is stupid. Mandatory background checks on guns is sensible and basically what is already done everywhere: looking up driving record before issuing a license to drive.

Pro tip: when you resort to analogy instead of data, it's easy to spot that you're full of shit.

Based on numbers not feels.

Drivers license not needed to buy a car.

[matheney2k]

Based on numbers not feels.

Drivers license not needed to buy a car.

Drivers license is needed to operate/use a car.

[Kellhound]

Manditory insurance already exist for cars and they already at least force breathalyzers on convicted drunk drivers.

Now can we do the same for guns, then we will get back to pushing for more on cars.

and btw you know ya can do more than one thing at a time right?

That only impacts those already proven to not be able to not drink and drive.

Driving is not a right, but you can buy a car even if prohibited from driving.

And I am sure you have never promoted it before.

- - - Updated - - -

Drivers license is needed to operate/use a car.

Concealed carry license required in most states to carry a concealed handgun.

[Felya]

Drivers license not needed to buy a car.

Are you suggesting the right to bare arms, does not grant the right to shoot? That’s an interesting take...

[Felya]

He is right. Some politicians would go so far as to abolish the 2nd or amend it to the point, it would not protect a citizen's right to keep and carry firearms. The difference however between Australia and the US is, they do not have a constitution giving their citizens a right for such. There are still too many states which are run by governments which are pro second amendment rights for them to get away with it here.

Could that change in the future? Absolutely. Which is why Jefferson remarked, that liberty requires constant vigilance.

Good video, thanks for sharing.

You remove lobbying, that support will fade. Guns are the only industry, that claims constitutional requirements. Imagine if all gun manufacturers go out of business... what does that mean for the 2nd amendment?

[Ghostpanther]

Australians speaking about about gun control

He is right. Some politicians would go so far as to abolish the 2nd or amend it to the point, it would not protect a citizen's right to keep and carry firearms. The difference however between Australia and the US is, they do not have a constitution giving their citizens a right for such. There are still too many states which are run by governments which are pro second amendment rights for them to get away with it here.

Could that change in the future? Absolutely. Which is why Jefferson remarked, that liberty requires constant vigilance. While there is no proof in his writings he said such, there are plenty of proof such a stance is supported by many of the founders and Jefferson in spirit did support it based on his other statements.

Good video, thanks for sharing.

[Felya]

Could that change in the future? Absolutely. Which is why Jefferson remarked, that liberty requires constant vigilance. While there is no proof in his writings he said such, there are plenty of proof such a stance is supported by many of the founders and Jefferson in spirit did support it based on his other statements.

Beyond the weird assertion, followed by contradiction... isn’t a car a more suitable vehicle of Liberty, than a gun? If you ask police, a lot of their infringement on citizen’s liberty, is due to the proliferation of guns.

[Rethul Ur No]

And you don’t know the difference between liberals and anarchists? I’ve heard of social distancing, but this is ridiculous.

Actual anarchists are rare. Most "anarchists" are LARPing watermelons pretending to be small government until it comes to guns or other icky things they don't like. It's fine because they're all equally retarded.

[the game]

Beyond the weird assertion, followed by contradiction... isn’t a car a more suitable vehicle of Liberty, than a gun? If you ask police, a lot of their infringement on citizen’s liberty, is due to the proliferation of guns.

the right to defend yourself is a more important liberty and transportation. That's why one is a constitutional right and the other is a privilege. The right to defend yourself predates the constitution. It's a natural right.

[Felya]

the right to defend yourself is a more important liberty and transportation. That's why one is a constitutional right and the other is a privilege. The right to defend yourself predates the constitution. It's a natural right.

We are discussing the right to bare arms, not your perversion there of.

Cars are absolutely more valuable to Liberty, than a gun. It’s undeniable...