Current Events > Liberals will always want more gun control.

(+) Yeah! (+)

We have to stop liberal nonsense. If we let them ban the AR-15, they'll want to ban the M1A and M1 Garand because they're "weapons of war" (Obama's words to describe the M1 Garand). They'll then ban all semi-automatic rifles, and they won't stop there. You'll literally be using a single shot flintlock rifle to defend your home before you know it, and you'll have to pay a yearly tax for owning it, and police will come into your house whenever they want and make sure it's secured in a safe with the ammo stored in a separate area of the house.
---

Fine, next.
---

Reposted from Facebook
---

It's a good thing we have you, an alpha of the highest caliber, looking out for all the poor gun owners.
---

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Oh how would we ever survive without access to dozens of different gun models?

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."
---

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

can you find an example of someone who said "nobody needs a gun". i find it interesting that you used quotations. i cannot think of instances where i've heard people seriously have a stance like this, liberal or otherwise.

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

I think the idea is you take care of the disenfranchised and people who have it bad, there is less crime and thus less need to carry semi-automatic weapons to protect yourself.

I don't know many well-off people who are mugging others and breaking into homes to steal a TV.
---

Fam_Fam posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

can you find an example of someone who said "nobody needs a gun". i find it interesting that you used quotations. i cannot think of instances where i've heard people seriously have a stance like this, liberal or otherwise.

AlephZero posts "only the police should have guns" all the time. It's a common stance on this board that a normal citizen shouldn't have second amendment rights.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

I think the idea is you take care of the disenfranchised and people who have it bad, there is less crime and thus less need to carry semi-automatic weapons to protect yourself.

I don't know many well-off people who are mugging others and breaking into homes to steal a TV.

What about a sex offender who breaks into women's homes? Do you think his financial situation matters? You can't just end crime by giving government handouts. There are bad people out there.
---

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

This sounds like someone who put a gun next to his baby in the crib.
---

62-Year-Old With Gun Only One Standing Between Nation And Full-Scale Government Takeover

https://www.theonion.com/62-year-old-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-nation-a-1819574418
---

I want a society that helps people before they do something that results in people needing a gun to defend themself.
---

Pepys Monster posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

I think the idea is you take care of the disenfranchised and people who have it bad, there is less crime and thus less need to carry semi-automatic weapons to protect yourself.

I don't know many well-off people who are mugging others and breaking into homes to steal a TV.

What about a sex offender who breaks into women's homes? Do you think his financial situation matters? You can't just end crime by giving government handouts. There are bad people out there.

You'll never "end crime", no. That being said, shouldn't the aim of any legislation be to lower the encounter rate of violent crime?
---

As long as there are gun deaths to exploit in fearmongering news media, there will be further gun control.

Pepys Monster posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

can you find an example of someone who said "nobody needs a gun". i find it interesting that you used quotations. i cannot think of instances where i've heard people seriously have a stance like this, liberal or otherwise.

AlephZero posts "only the police should have guns" all the time. It's a common stance on this board that a normal citizen shouldn't have second amendment rights.

If someone believes police should have guns, then they dont believe in the no one should have guns phrase. Because someone would have guns.
---

Pepys Monster posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

can you find an example of someone who said "nobody needs a gun". i find it interesting that you used quotations. i cannot think of instances where i've heard people seriously have a stance like this, liberal or otherwise.

AlephZero posts "only the police should have guns" all the time. It's a common stance on this board that a normal citizen shouldn't have second amendment rights.

He says that mockingly. He's not serious when he says it.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You'll never "end crime", no. That being said, shouldn't the aim of any legislation be to lower the encounter rate of violent crime?

Not when it interferes with a constitutional right. We started the American Revolution because we DIDN'T want to live in a police state. Liberals should move to the UK.
---

Fam_Fam posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

can you find an example of someone who said "nobody needs a gun". i find it interesting that you used quotations. i cannot think of instances where i've heard people seriously have a stance like this, liberal or otherwise.

Go to 261. I've seen people say "get rid of the 2nd."

Go interview people at a college. Lots of them will say the same thing about the2nd

And the 1st

Pepys Monster posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You'll never "end crime", no. That being said, shouldn't the aim of any legislation be to lower the encounter rate of violent crime?

Not when it interferes with a constitutional right. We started the American Revolution because we DIDN'T want to live in a police state. Liberals should move to the UK.

I'm a Canadian. We love our guns. We have a lot of guns per capita (I mean, not compared to the US because LOL), yet nowhere near the amount of gun violence.

Wouldn't that be accounted for by changes in political ideology and social policy as opposed to just a blanket, "Americans are more violent by nature" type argument?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You'll never "end crime", no. That being said, shouldn't the aim of any legislation be to lower the encounter rate of violent crime?

Not when it interferes with a constitutional right. We started the American Revolution because we DIDN'T want to live in a police state. Liberals should move to the UK.

I'm a Canadian. We love our guns. We have a lot of guns per capita (I mean, not compared to the US because LOL), yet nowhere near the amount of gun violence.

Wouldn't that be accounted for by changes in political ideology and social policy as opposed to just a blanket, "Americans are more violent by nature" type argument?

Perhaps.
---

I'm not suggesting a gun ban. That is ridiculous. No real change in gun ownership will affect much until you deal with black market sales of guns too, which (from what I've read) is somewhat high in the US.

Tackle that first. Before you worry about which weapons to "ban" or not, deal with groups of people who are illegally selling them.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You'll never "end crime", no. That being said, shouldn't the aim of any legislation be to lower the encounter rate of violent crime?

Not when it interferes with a constitutional right. We started the American Revolution because we DIDN'T want to live in a police state. Liberals should move to the UK.

I'm a Canadian. We love our guns. We have a lot of guns per capita (I mean, not compared to the US because LOL), yet nowhere near the amount of gun violence.

Wouldn't that be accounted for by changes in political ideology and social policy as opposed to just a blanket, "Americans are more violent by nature" type argument?

Canada doesn't have our gang problems.
Canada doesn't have Chicago

only cops should have guns
---

Yes. Is there is a problem with wanting to prevent gun deaths? Sorry I'm not a inanimate object loving sociopath
---

Foppe posted...

I want a society that helps people before they do something that results in people needing a gun to defend themself.

This. I'm mostly liberal and I have zero problems with responsible, mentally stable, law-abiding citizens owning guns. None whatsoever. It's when guns are in the hands of dangerous, mentally unstable people that they cause problems. A crazy person's right to own a gun shouldn't overrule their target's right to life and liberty.

I don't want guns banned, and I respect the second amendment and what it means to people. All I want is for it to be more difficult for people who would use them to harm others to get a hold of a gun. More background checks, psychological evaluations, ending 'gun show' loopholes, that sort of thing. If you're a responsible, mentally stable, law-abiding citizen, you'd have no trouble and shouldn't be opposed to such changes because your rights wouldn't be affected at all.
---

the problem is that its never enough. i do feel most on the left do NOT want to ban guns, but when ever something happens theres this constant knee jerk emotional response of "we have to do something" which generally means getting rid of another part of the object or even further rights instead of analyzing why something like that happened and going after the root cause. eventually you are left with nothing. just look at NY and the crap they keep proposing thats not only in serious violation of the 2nd, but also the first now. there is no satisfaction on gun control.

sobergermanguy posted...

Yes. Is there is a problem with wanting to prevent gun deaths? Sorry I'm not a inanimate object loving sociopath

Criminals don't care about dumb gun laws like "magazines must be 10 rounds or less." They'll drive to the next state and buy 30 rounders, then come back. Gun control disadvantages law-abiding citizens.
---

Pepys Monster posted...

sobergermanguy posted...

Yes. Is there is a problem with wanting to prevent gun deaths? Sorry I'm not a inanimate object loving sociopath

Criminals don't care about dumb gun laws like "magazines must be 10 rounds or less." They'll drive to the next state and buy 30 rounders, then come back. Gun control disadvantages law-abiding citizens.

What if no states sells 30 rounders?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Before you worry about which weapons to "ban" or not, deal with groups of people who are illegally selling them.

This too. Stopping illegal sales of guns will also make it tougher for dangerous people to get their hands on them. Same as what I said before, if you have no intention of using your gun to break the law or harm another human being, you should have no problem buying your gun legally, right?
---

Foppe posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

sobergermanguy posted...

Yes. Is there is a problem with wanting to prevent gun deaths? Sorry I'm not a inanimate object loving sociopath

Criminals don't care about dumb gun laws like "magazines must be 10 rounds or less." They'll drive to the next state and buy 30 rounders, then come back. Gun control disadvantages law-abiding citizens.

What if no states sells 30 rounders?

A magazine is a metal or plastic body, a spring, a plastic follower, and a base plate. Do you think modifying a 10 rounder or constructing a magazine is impossible for someone with a shop in their garage?
---

We have a socioeconomic problem, not a gun problem.

That's why these gun measures fail. They attack the symptoms but not the causes.

So, when the next do nothing gun measure passes(bump stock ban), and a high profile shooting is covered to death(bonus points for the media if it's racial), those for gun control will say, "We need more gun control! Why won't you compromise?!"
---

Pepys Monster posted...

Foppe posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

sobergermanguy posted...

Yes. Is there is a problem with wanting to prevent gun deaths? Sorry I'm not a inanimate object loving sociopath

Criminals don't care about dumb gun laws like "magazines must be 10 rounds or less." They'll drive to the next state and buy 30 rounders, then come back. Gun control disadvantages law-abiding citizens.

What if no states sells 30 rounders?

A magazine is a metal or plastic body, a spring, a plastic follower, and a base plate. Do you think modifying a 10 rounder or constructing a magazine is impossible for someone with a shop in their garage?

So why do you need to go to the next state if you got some tools in your garage?
---

Foppe posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

Foppe posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

sobergermanguy posted...

Yes. Is there is a problem with wanting to prevent gun deaths? Sorry I'm not a inanimate object loving sociopath

Criminals don't care about dumb gun laws like "magazines must be 10 rounds or less." They'll drive to the next state and buy 30 rounders, then come back. Gun control disadvantages law-abiding citizens.

What if no states sells 30 rounders?

A magazine is a metal or plastic body, a spring, a plastic follower, and a base plate. Do you think modifying a 10 rounder or constructing a magazine is impossible for someone with a shop in their garage?

So why do you need to go to the next state if you got some tools in your garage?

You don't. Limiting magazine capacity is nonsensical.
---

Just wondering TC, at what point with weaponry do you say that regular citizens should not be allowed to purchase an item?

Should an average joe be allowed to purchase grenades, for example.
---

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You'll never "end crime", no. That being said, shouldn't the aim of any legislation be to lower the encounter rate of violent crime?

Not when it interferes with a constitutional right. We started the American Revolution because we DIDN'T want to live in a police state. Liberals should move to the UK.

I'm a Canadian. We love our guns. We have a lot of guns per capita (I mean, not compared to the US because LOL), yet nowhere near the amount of gun violence.

Wouldn't that be accounted for by changes in political ideology and social policy as opposed to just a blanket, "Americans are more violent by nature" type argument?

Canada doesn't have our gang problems.
Canada doesn't have Chicago

Canada also doesnt have the same history the US does.
---

Why are all alt right people such snowflakes?
---

Conservatives will always want more walls
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Just wondering TC, at what point with weaponry do you say that regular citizens should not be allowed to purchase an item?

Should an average joe be allowed to purchase grenades, for example.

Good question. I think explosives like grenades and rocket launchers should be controlled, but fully automatic rifles should be legal.
---

The whole liberal platform, at least as far as those with actual power among the liberal circle (ie: liberal politicians and well-known influencers), is "act like we're trying to solve the problems people care about, while claiming no one else cares about them, but we're actually taking steps that will do nothing or even make them worse, so that people keep supporting us".

When you realise this, almost everything about the way the left works these days makes perfect sense.
---

Pepys Monster posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Just wondering TC, at what point with weaponry do you say that regular citizens should not be allowed to purchase an item?

Should an average joe be allowed to purchase grenades, for example.

Good question. I think explosives like grenades and rocket launchers should be controlled, but fully automatic rifles should be legal.

Isn't the worry then escalation? Not to quote Batman Begins or anything, but if "everyone" has fully automatic rifles, and we agree criminals won't follow the law on guns to begin with, doesn't that give them license and the "need" to go even further than that?
---

i just want you to train in safe operation and storage of a firearm before being legally allowed to operate it the same way you do a car. and i want your weapon registered by owner, same as a car. and i want transfer of that weapon to update the registered owner, same as a car.

if we did not require those of cars, our automobile fatality rates would be much higher; if we required those of firearms, I believe our firearm fatality rates would become lower and hence better.

the right to bear arms was established before semi-automatic weapons existed; the changes in technology demand a change in the way we view that technology.

and realistically, an automobile is much more central to american life than a firearm, so I do not believe such requirements are unduly strict. they have not held back our access to automobiles. they have not kept us from buying used automobiles. they have not made our automobiles worse, or our people less free to travel in automobiles.
---

Darkman124 posted...

i just want you to train in safe operation and storage of a firearm before being legally allowed to operate it the same way you do a car. and i want your weapon registered by owner, same as a car. and i want transfer of that weapon to update the registered owner, same as a car.

if we did not require those of cars, our automobile fatality rates would be much higher; if we required those of firearms, I believe our firearm fatality rates would become lower and hence better.

the right to bear arms was established before semi-automatic weapons existed; the changes in technology demand a change in the way we view that technology.

and realistically, an automobile is much more central to american life than a firearm, so I do not believe such requirements are unduly strict.

Gold star for effort at least. Now how about we focus on where our gun violence is actually happening, and work on reducing crime there?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Just wondering TC, at what point with weaponry do you say that regular citizens should not be allowed to purchase an item?

Should an average joe be allowed to purchase grenades, for example.

Good question. I think explosives like grenades and rocket launchers should be controlled, but fully automatic rifles should be legal.

Isn't the worry then escalation? Not to quote Batman Begins or anything, but if "everyone" has fully automatic rifles, and we agree criminals won't follow the law on guns to begin with, doesn't that give them license and the "need" to go even further than that?

I don't think so. What situation are we talking about here, a lone home invader? A group of guys doing a bank heist? Either way, I don't think they'll be using an RPG-7.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

Gold star for effort at least. Now how about we focus on where our gun violence is actually happening, and work on reducing crime there?

we are already doing that.

crime rates have been falling for 30 years

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

what is rising is suicide and mass shootings by individuals with limited criminal history

this post has been edited for accuracy
---

Darkman124 posted...

and i want your weapon registered by owner

registration leads to confiscation which kinda puts a bend in the whole concept of the 2nd amendment. the tech changes, but the concept of needing the tools to stand up to an opposing force does not. that means keeping up with as much of what an opposing modern force would have.

there is also a MASSIVE difference in cars vs guns. a car is a 2ton chunk of metal interacting with other 2ton chunks of metal going side by side at 50mph down a road with people inside them and needing to adhere to a hundred different rules on how to interact with them and being able to travel in them. there needs to be additional steps in order so people do not potentially kill a dozen individuals because they turned a little rubber steering wheel a few degrees too far to the left. just the sheer accident tallies shows how serious it. even with all of the additional steps in operating cars and their rules it leads to about 25x more vehicle accidents and deaths than guns despite there only being 2.5x more vehicles than guns in the US and even factoring in concealed carry holders who carry their firearms on them most of the time its still not as much as vehicles comparatively which involves all of the extra rules, regulations and required aspects.

Pepys Monster posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

mrstcloud1138 posted...

Liberals don't want families to be able to defend themselves.

Nope, they don't care about innocent people being robbed or killed. They think "nobody needs a gun."

can you find an example of someone who said "nobody needs a gun". i find it interesting that you used quotations. i cannot think of instances where i've heard people seriously have a stance like this, liberal or otherwise.

AlephZero posts "only the police should have guns" all the time. It's a common stance on this board that a normal citizen shouldn't have second amendment rights.

which is different from nobody should have a gun. i've almost never heard that.