Educating Anti-gun idiots
An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle with a selector switch. A semi-automatic rifle such as the AR-15 is just a normal rifle.
The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied men ages 17-45. the law specifically spells this out and by saying the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia you are saying that all able bodied males ages 17-to 45 have the right to bear arms
Magazine limits will not stop mass shootings
Bad-guys can make a gun for cheap
Saying "why do you need an assault rifle" is like saying "why do you need freedom of speech"
Murder was still illegal when mass shooting happened. Making a new law to make more things illegal when the criminal don't obey the law only punishes the Law Abiding citizens
There is a difference between a "clip" and a "magazine"
it occurred to me this morning that the pro life / pro choice movement is very similar to the gun control talks. mostly of interest was the argument of incrementalism that is being torn up by the supreme court. also, moral life decisions in the hands of the "other"
>Saying "why do you need an assault rifle" is like saying "why do you need freedom of speech"
Disagree with crap like that. But to each his own
You're talking to a conservative, and a Trump supporter at that
someone doesn't know their history
the soviets refused to fight in their military during their civil war, what's stopping troops from firing upon the people they're supposed to protect?
The problem in America isn't guns. Other countries have similar gun culture and don't shoot each other. The problem is Americans. Until they learn to play nice with each other they should have their toys taken away.
Nice straw man faggot. Try not to make that big of a stretch next time
> bolt action 1 shot
> lever action 1 shot
> burst fire 3 shots
One of these things isn't like the others.
Though it is stupid that the word assault is used for scaremongering, it is an assault weapon.
Assault just means capable of suppressing fire.
Assault weapons murder about as effectively as a submachine gun (protip: not very)
well, they don't have to anymore. resistance will be met with horrifying force. everyone here who thought it was a big fucking joke in Ferguson was not looking at the big picture. Boston rolled out a rifle battalion with armored support. tiny PDs have switched from shotguns in the car to AR-15s.
by all means, keep your weapons. but make no mistake, you are now and forever in the land of LARP / cosplay if you think you can stand up to power here.
Nah we like our toys. In any case...
You can't bitch about Americans. We are you. Every nutjob, religious extremist, criminal, entrepreneur, rebel, and doublefaggot ran to the states. We took everyone running to or from something that you couldn't handle, and now you wonder why the baby with a bazooka does crazy shit sometimes? Get real. Pic related.
I'll take my do damn near whatever I want and "danger" over eurofaggotry any day.
So let's say that this meme is true. Let's say the government does actually become tyrannical in a way that negatively impacts you heavily. Are you telling us that in this situation you would rather roll over and say "well okay" than die fighting for something you truly believe in?
The ability to change magazines quickly is what is needed to conduct a military style assault, the action of the gun has no bearing on it. No other feature matters. In the rights hands, a bolt action can fire just as quickly as a semi-automatic assault rifle.
False, the civilian AR styled rifle is capable of semi automatic firing, not burst. As a matter of fact the only weapon used by the US military that supports a burst fire are 2 SMG weapons being the MP7 and MP5. Assault means a fully automatic function not just suppressing fire.
I'm not gonna say that guns in all situations are good, nor that guns in all situations are bad.
However i believe that if you really need something you'll go through what you need to to get it.
I am completely for people having the rights to bear arms, however they shoudn't be easy to access as they are a dangerous weapon.
People are right when they say guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Another thing you should know is that if you make it easy for someone to do something, they're more likely to do it.
Stricter gun control, meaning making it harder to obtain guns will make it so that any mass murderers that wishes to use guns will be easy to track, and will have a harder time obtaining his desired weapon.
Look at Canada, everyone believes they don't have guns and it's illegal to. They're wrong, they have just as many guns. The only difference is that it's harder to get a personal gun in Canada, not only that but you need a license, that way they can make sure that you won't murder large amounts of people. Sure there are exceptions, but they're far less common than in the U.S.
TL;DR: Guns should be harder to get, but not impossible.
has not shot a gun before. show me a picture of your gun with a timestamp and I might consider what you have to say. any shooter laughs and the bullshit your just spewed.
>burst fire 3 shots
>AR-15 for citizens
Are you fucking mental?
AR-15s are NOT capable of 3-round burst, off the shelf. It is with some serious modification...
However, the M16 is capable of that (or full auto depending on which M16). The M16 also happens to be the modified version that the US military adopted.
>bolt action 1 shot
>lever action 1 shot
>semi-automatic 1 shot
Also, as the law is written, an "assault" weapon is a weapon that has 2-3 or more pieces of furniture. Such as a pistol grip, adjustable but stock, or even a vertical grip. Simply because it makes more "deadlier" or "shootier". How though?
Further proving there is no such thing as an assault weapon.
You are terribly wrong, to conduct a military assault takes a squad with weaponry that can fire in either a full auto function or semi auto, the ability to change magazines quickly is just skill
Source: I was in the military
Here are two assault rifles, tell me which one is an assault rifle by your definition and therefore should be available for purchase for civilian use
That is patently, reliably false. There is no "right hands" that can make bolt action as fas as a semi-auto, its just not possible. Even with training, getting one accurate shot every second with a bolt action is damn near impossible. With a semi-auto, its not only doable, its a low estimate. Semi-auto's can be expected to put two or three reasonably accurate rounds downrange a second, but even if you are taking your time, there is no way you wont beat a bolt action.
So the entire military is going to man half of them in 12 hour shifts?
Who will come and arrest people for the violations they find?
Men in tanks and planes have to go home sometime and when your home is the battlefield it makes it a lot harder to hide.
good point, but with the advancement of 3d printing, the proliferation of weapons for the disastrous war on drugs and the fact that you can buy all but the lower receiver on line means that the only thing gun control might do is to turn normally law abiding gun nuts into criminals.
Yes. But it has to be manufactured before 1968 if I'm not mistaken.
They are rather expensive. Spare parts are rather slim, so they are often times are decorative pieces. People do fire them, just not as often as you think.
They are also heavily regulated.
That is my point, no one can tell
Can you attest that military trains in almost all conditions for semi-automatic fire? And that burst and full automatic have few applications on the battlefield (for instance, providing cover) and do not generate the kills that semiautomatic fire do?
If semiautomatic is primarily used in both military and civilian use, there is no need to quibble about the definition.
Saying "why do you need an assault rifle" is like saying "why do you need freedom of speech"
is what he linked and he said
>Disagree with crap like that. But to each his own
what I asked is
>so you disagree with freedom of speech but not the other amendments in the bill of rights?
the way he stated it is that he disagreed with the amendments stated and I asked a question to clarify his statement.
It's not an assault rifle though. It's just a rifle. An assault rifle is a specific term that denotes a rifle with automatic fire and a fire rate selector. If it's semi-auto only or less, it's not an assault rifle. If it's full-auto only, it's a machine gun.
>implying soldiers don't have civilian families and loved ones
>implying that shit was a panacea to guerilla warfare in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc
>implying soldiers won't splinter off to side with civilians and take military gear with them
>implying chemistry doesn't exist
>implying supply chains locally and globally wouldn't be nearly stopped with reduced work force happening
>implying real life is like your little video games
>being this weak and unintelligent
The us citizens could easily beat the military in all out war.
Faggots like you also forget the type of people who make up the military would also be some of the first people to join a constitution based revolution.
If there was a popular revolution in America that was based on the constitution there would be mass defection in the military. Much of it would be high command as well, not just low ranking grunts.
no, at least three people on a sub par 4chan thread can tell you if you flip the pic. so, no you need to provide all info before we can make the decision. its like you asking us how many pennies you have in your pocket and then mocking our incorrect guess.
You are an idiot, your point is that you are an enormous pussy and those weapons look scary too you, therefor they must be more dangerous or deadly.
The military trains to use both single and burst fire modes. Primarily we train to use single fire to teach ammo conservation and accuracy.
You missed the point completely. It's not about the fact that the military would win in a "fight", its the fact that our military wouldnt be able to withstand a population's worth of resistance for any extended period of time.
>That is my point, no one can tell
So what you are saying there is no way anyone can tell the difference if they held the rifle.
let me explain what a selector switch is
In the picture, This is the side of the gun. this is a fully automatic M-16 that the military uses. the Ar-15 does not have the "Auto" function. Even though the outside of the rifles look similar the insides are different. It's like the difference between the v6 and v8 mustang. Both are much different in power but look the same on the outside.
Defining an assault rifle as a gun with an elongated barrel that can accept a detachable high capacity magazine is better than defining it as any rifle with a selector switch because it distinguishes an assault rifle from your father’s hunting rifle. You can take away a gun’s folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, select fire mode, and use a nice wood finish, and it is still an assault rifle if it can accept a high capacity magazine. If it doesn’t have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, then you can keep the folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, and it is still your dad’s hunting rifle.
You can even keep select fire mode.
You don’t need anything else but a high capacity magazine to conduct an assault. The military does it every day. Select fire is irrelevant.
That was an isolated incident and they weren't ordered to fire on people.
I agree there will be plenty of good little pawns who follow orders. There will also be thousands and thousands that will not.
>Saying "why do you need an assault rifle" is like saying "why do you need freedom of speech"
Here's why this is a misleading argument, you don't need a detachable high capacity magazine nor semi auto fire in a legitimate sporting weapon, it isn't the ability to fire full auto which no trained soldier in the field will likely use, or that any competent rifleman will miss. Even bolt action rifles can be used with sufficient speed as to easily allow for a second or third shot when hunting game. These capabilities however are what allow a rifle to be used as an effective military weapon. By switching the conversation to effectively a little important feature, which does however sound terrifying to the uninformed, you're shaping a conversation in which the point is getting missed. The sole use of a semi auto in wilderness would be to theoretically protect yourself from dangerous fauna such as Elk or Grizzlies, except for this purpose you're better of using a pistol or revolver as we are talking short to mid ranges, arguably you need larger calibers than the AR-15 chambers for self defense. If you want to carry just one gun then you can learn to use it properly and be done with it, there's people who've killed bears using slingbows.
"But the second amendment is about protecting citizens from governemnt" that guns appropiate for combat should be owned by private citizens is a different issue altogether and I'll agree the most important one. But this is what you should be defending and not that there isn't any difference between an assault rifle and a hunting one. It is dishonest to say that it's selective fire that's the difference and not mention the magazine. It's a lie that you need a semi-auto for "sport" you're correct people need to be educated.
People forget that the military is made up of people. There was talk of my unit being sent out to confiscate peoples guns at one point while I was in the Army, we had a formation about it. 95% of people in my unit said that they could not in good conscience take part in it. I was invited into a militia that day by a staff sergeant, should, of course, something like this go down.
People underestimate the amount of resistance that will come from within the military.
The great thing about the 2nd amendment is that it has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.
The entire point of the 2nd amendment is to say that the people need weapons to conduct assault upon the government with.
>You don’t need anything else but a high capacity magazine to conduct an assault
Ok faggot, what is this magical "assault" maneuver you keep referring to, and why the fuck does it have a bearing on anything?
It takes a massive civilian infrastructure to keep all that shit working. You cannot protect every fuel convoy, workers in every production plant, every pencil pusher in every base and contractor company. The government may have big fireworks but those will be used up quickly compared to a long battle of armed insurgency.
>implying all service members are mindless drones
First, if the government decided to turn the military against it's own citizens, the armed forces would crumble.
Those of us who are service members are not mindless cucks. If such a scenario happened, a significant number of us would risk insubordination. There will be those who will follow such orders.
Second, the military has this thing called Rules of Engagement (RoF). They have them to minimize collateral damage. If the military was turned on the citizens, do you really think the government would have everything blown up only for nothing to be left?
Finally. Civilian small-arms have better specs than most military weapons. Majority of the M16s are from just after the Vietnam War. Hell, my M249 is from Nam.
>Here's why this is a misleading argument
no because the second Amendment protects the other 9 Amendments in the bill of rights.I used the freedom of speech as an example because the right to speak out against tyranny is nothing without the ability to do anything about it. I think you need to take a government class.
Tell me, libcucks, is this an assault rifle?
>btw, the answer is no.
Not all of them did. In fact there was a group that told their commander that they will not because it was a violation of the second amendment. If a disaster hit I would not give up my gun just because some fucking gun grabber in a political office.
yeah, militia guys also have a tendency to piss off the locals. you don't get a lot of popular support that way.
I lived in Vegas during the first Bundy stand off and those morons had set up road blocks and check points south of town. keeping folks from their jobs or checking ID's is a sure fire way to get ratted out to the cops or the guard.
So then to you this is an assault rifle?
Obama will take your guns so you should become an hero.
Uhhh, to be fair, you are
a) Showing us the wrong goddamn side, again
b) That looks pretty damn certain it does have a selector switch that goes to full auto, so yeah, that's probably an assault rifle.
I don't know very much about guns. I will admit this readily.
I don't like guns, I don't want to own one or be around them consistently. They are extremely frightening to me.
With that being said, I would never try to take away the rights of gun owners just because of my fear. There are plenty of people in this country who use their guns responsibly and wouldn't harm unless completely nessecary.
I think if gun owners lost some of the hostility towards people like me who fear guns and rather than berating actually tried to help educate then less liberals would be so clueless about it.
Would you honestly say that if the government you lived in became tyrannical in a way that was heavily negative for you and the people you care about that you would rather just say "alright fine" instead of saying "fuck that" and being willing to die to fix it?
Lets talk about numbers, faggot.
Rifles are the least used type of firearm for murder. Knives, blunt objects, and punching and kicking all kill far more people than rifles.
But you aren't concerned with facts now are you? You just want to throw out buzzwords like "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"
Source: FBI expanded homicide data table 8
No, you are not being shown the wrong fucking side. You can tell whether or not it is select fire by the fucking auto-sear pin just above the selector. Whether or not the other side says "Safe Semi Auto" is moot if there is no auto-sear pin.
It is NOT an assault rifle as it is NOT chambered in an intermediate cartridge. It is chambered in 9mm, which makes it a sub-machine gun.
ok, your definition is wrong and your point is not valid but most important of all, 3D printers.
people can now make their own magazines in their living rooms. its over johnny!
All i'm saying is, if you wanna take our guns go right ahead.
You won't get very far even with the large military.
the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and if you saw major gun raids you would also see many troops splintering out.
How in the living fuck am I supposed to be able to tell what that gun is chambered in?
I have never in my life seen an AR-15 platform even have a "pretend" setting for auto, and yeah, I missed the sear pin, I'll give you that.
But there is no way that I could tell it wasn't chambered in 5.56, and you know it.
Dude, most people would roll over because they're fucking betas. But, what they don't get is, the people are the power of the government. Without people, the government couldn't do anything and it wouldn't make a difference if they could.
Government closes down all forms of transportation into and out of the country. No planes, boats, trains, cars, etc are allowed in or out. Regular patrols are posted along all borders to prevent leaving with orders to shoot on sight. Now what do you do?
CORRECTION, you cant tell.
If we could see both sides of these guns we would be able to tell. And them being semi-auto or not would be the differentiating factor. Furthermore why does it matter if YOUR too ignorant to tell if they are semi-auto or not. The capability of a gun is what is important, not how scary it looks. Would you feel better if they were pink and said in bold letters, LEGAL RIFLE OF LAW ABIDING CITIZEN across it?
So rather than fighting for what you feel is right you would just run away... Our founding fathers would be so proud. If you aren't willing to fight for your rights then you don't deserve to have them in the first place.
I see that you are just as fucking illiterate as every other gun porn asshole..,
"WELL REGULATED Militia"
That means a well regulated force, the National Guard. That's what the Foundeds meant. Go read their own fucking words.
Assault Rifle is an asinine term. Fine. High capacity mags should be banned because what makes these rifles the killing machines they are is the volume of bullets they pouring out a target as fast as someone can pull a trigger. The spawlof the round also increases leathity. These were not made for hunting of target plinking. They were made with the express intent of killing other human beings.
Go jerk off and have a semantically argument with yourself but never forget the above facts. You can delude yourself into thinking the Founding Fathers wanted red neck trash like you to have access to whatever firearm you wanted, yet they never gave you the right to vote unless you were a land owner... But you're just lying to yourself and everyone else around you.
You say "we don't need detachable high capacity magazine nor... etc." But, how long are you going to keep coming up with things that gun owners don't need? Every new gun law creates another opportunity to make another stricter gun law. That's what they've been doing for the past 100 years. The only thing I want to see is extensive background checks. People with past crimes shouldn't be able to get a gun. Or people who seem mentally unstable.
Not everyone gave up their guns...most criminals fired upon officers and fire fighters, go figure, the criminals didnt follow. Also completely differnt incident since this was a humanitarian effort, not a conflict.
If you knew anything about guns you would easily be able to identify that it was not chambered in 5.56x45 NATO. One of the most obvious give-aways is the fact that the brass deflector is moved forward, the dust cover being cut down to accommodate this. 5.56 casings would never fit through such a small opening. A more subtle give-away is the roll pins in the mag-well, which hold the magazine blocks in place, so it can properly accept 32 round stick magazines. But basically, since you don't know jack shit about guns in general, you definitely wouldn't have been able to positively identify this sub-gun as the Colt R0635.
In an actual armed uprising or civil war it won't be just a few militiamen and the entire US military and law enforcement. In fact, in case you forgot, most service men and officers are deeply passionate about the second amendment. So he is totally right.
No tax guns, taise the price of guns by 1000% and make bullets cost a few $100 each, you still keep your guns (muh rights) it says nothing in there about limiting their cost, so tax guns the same as cigarettes and it will cost you over $10k to go shoot up a school
The only thing about mental stability is that people's mental state can change.
A perfectly happy healthy person could get a gun, and three years alter their wife could leave them, their daughter gets carried off by a pack of niggers, and their dog dies.
Then that person's mental state won't be good. People decline, so the only way to ensure mentally healthy gun owners is periodic checkups or evaluations.
After it says "a well regulated militia".
There is a comma and it says the citizens separately.
Way to pick apart the amendment and omit parts you dont like to >>692741579
purposely misconstrue what they mean.
>ill take north korea for 800 alex
Not only is it possible, its being done at this very moment. Not to the extent that i described, ill give you that, but try being a citizen of north korea and just decide one day that you want to leave
"A well-[balanced breakfast] being necessary to the [start of a healthy day], the right of the people to keep and [eat food] shall not be infringed"
Who has the right to keep and eat food?
>A well-balanced breakfast
That's right, the people.
Yeah but we're also able to bully the rest of the world because of guys like this
Not a gun person myself, but America's military is pretty nice for getting what we want, even tho its power economically is dwindling as more countries get nukes
I would argue further. These are not weapons either because guns don't kill people but people kill people so actually people are weapons. Assault weapon is a person who assaults another human being irrespective of carrying stick shooting bullets or not.
no you are right, as a matter of fact the gun i own is a revolver, and i don't go hunting anymore. i live right down the street from a super market that has amazing food.
The reason rural folks like semi autos with more than 5 rounds is not for hunting but for protection. it matters when you live 30 minutes or so from town, and coyotes are out at night, or a pack of javelinas, or hell just seeing a god damn rattle snake can get grown men twitchy. and no, unless you are jerry miculek you are way better off with a rifle or shotgun. hands get shaky, and yes this is nature who does not give a single fuck about your bill of rights.
Assault weapons are a made up buzzword for media and anti gunners to use to make modern sporting rifles sound more scary.
Anything you use to attack someone with is an assault weapon.
Now, assault rifles are select fire weapons capable of burst and automatic fire.
Alright, fine, you finnicky little shit.
Sure, I was brought up around guns. Fired them all my life. My dad was a police chief as well as a fire-arms instructor.
You sure as shit got me beat, so congratulations on that.
But if I, with experience that is at least above average for most Americans, can't tell, then neither will a legislator, a regular voter, or essentially anyone except for you and a few other gun-nuts, not to mention that that is probably your personal gun, so of course you'll know it inside and out, as you should. So what's the point? What are you getting out of this exercise?
Yes. In North Korea.
Which is so vastly diffferent to the United states in terms of population, land mass, laws, culture, and everything else as to make the comparison meaningless.
You seem to misunderstand, I'm not anti-gun. I don't want one but I respect your right to one.
That anon suggested that mental health screenings were a good idea, so I responded with the issue with that.
We're fluid creatures, a happy person does not stay happy, a responsible person does not always stay responsible.
>The national guard is a militia
T. I know jackshit about how militaries work. The national guard are reserves and secondaries. Every nation has something like this. You don't send every fucking soldier to the front all at once.
wait, what? that would take most of the population to accomplish. although i do like the idea of ending a popular uprising by hiring the rebels and sending them off for guard duty. its genius
Have you no sense about you? Surely you are a millennial. Let's just put this together as something for you to consider.
Bases are still on the grid, but do come with backup generators and a finite supply of diesel. It's not hard to knock out parts of the electric grid which will have more than enough soft targets that they can't all be protected 24/7. Grid gets dropped, diesel starts getting consumed and eventually must be replenished. That isn't an easy task when refineries aren't operating because people are fighting or hiding. Every base will need what reserves they got so supply flights might not even happen. Base commander orders tanks in local fuel stations be pumped empty to replenish supplies.
Detachment is sent out, IEDs and explosive traps shred the troops and any military hardware working is appropriated. However, it's driven back to the base where Constitutionalists troops greet the militia. The base commander made sure loyalists were sent to their undoing. Now an entire base is under Constitutionalist control and feeding disinformation into Loyalist lines and spreading all intelligence gathered. Eventually these groups grow larger as they connect and coordinate across the country towards DC.
Now just think about the many other possibilities where home field advantage is everything. Loyalist families? Viable targets for demoralization and attempting to protect them creates a serious drain on base resources. You seeing the picture yet, anon?
Oh shit nigga!
>muh toys that were worthless against other guerilla insurgencies
You are erroneously assuming you know shit because you were "brought up around guns and shot them". By being around my firearms, I certainly do not accumulate knowledge. I still do not accrue knowledge by shooting my firearms. How does your father's profession have anything to do with your own knowledge? Obviously it does not speak well for you or him if you can't even identify/classify firearms correctly.
The exercise here is that you are ignorant and require education on the subject before you go making outlandish and patently false claims.
If you think I qualify as an "Anti-Gun" idiot because you knew more about your personal gun than I did, then I want no part in whatever bullshit "No True Scotsman" bullshit you're selling, pal.
Where is the line drawn on mental health? If you are having a stressfull time then you should never be able to own a gun? what if you already own a gun and a family member dies and you are stressed out? Should the government come and confiscate your guns? If so do you get them back or you just shit out of luck?
Of course they are. There is a complete lack of thorough thought in being anti-gun. If you aren't willing to defend yourself with a gun when guns are legal, you aren't going to defend yourself when they come at you with a knife.
what makes you think that feels right for everyone? i would do a reverse coyote thing myself and smuggle people out of the US should you crazy euro americans start shooting at each other. quite frankly, its none of my business.
>"the constitution guarantees it so we must make it so"
Idk if you realize this bud, but the whole point of the constitution is for the better meant of our well being. If our well being is jeopardized by a law, we change it
The whole point of debating this is to figure out if, in current day, it is better for the citizen to have access to guns or not to have access to guns
Your argument is dumb
Dear Libtards, anti-funs, and commies
What is the actual difference between these two rifles?
I'll give you a hint (nothing!)
Also are any of these rifles "scary assault weapons?"
Is this an assault weapon?
It doesn't have the pistol grip that gives it homing bullets that seek babies
Just admit you are a faggot that likes guns, for the same reason every time a /fit/ or "this guy slaps gf ass" thread is made on /b/, a bunch of 'merican's spout off about "mah .45, Mah Glock"
It's just sad
Having/requiring a firearm for personal defense of life, liberty, and property says nothing about being "not free". In fact, by owning such an implement, one is able to ensure and protect their freedom.
I'm having trouble understanding you... Is English not your first language? I also had to google "reverse coyote" found this as the definition so i'm even more confused tbh.
An auto-sexual position where the individual excretes excrement into their own mouth"
I don't think government control of that is the answer, I don't know if there even is an answer.
But it saddens me that no matter what we try to do to keep guns in the hands of responsible owners there is nothing stopping some poor drunk sap from blowing his brains out at 2am, or an enraged person from shooting their spouse after months of arguing and frustration.
Is this magically more deadly or less deadly?
My argument is not dumb in the least see >>692741235
Hammers, swimming pools, cars and cigarettes are more dangerous, if it is better meant of our well being that concerns you go after those first because they kill more people each year.
Libtards in commiefornia and jew york and tons of other retarded shit holes believe that the top rifle is a MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPON, where the bottom one is just a hunting rifle
Things that cause mass shootings:
- Civil discontent
- Federal funded "shadow" projects
- Blowback from overseas wars
- Child abuse
Things that do not cause mass shootings:
- Access to weaponry
Be afraid antigunfags. I can kill more babies in a second than an abortion clinic in a year with this thing.
According to retards in Canada
the top rifle (a vz-58) is legal to own but the bottom rifle (an AKM) is not for no fucking reason other than the bottom one looks scary
no, and my proof is the semi annual white power revolts that keep happening. if what you say is true then there would have been a hundred people at the bird sanctuary in oregon instead of what a dozen. just because i own a gun does not mean i am pro militia. my family are law enforcement, and there is no way i am going to go against family.
No, Colt R0635. It is chambered in 9x19mm, the roll pins on the mag-well are to hold in blocks which allow it to accept stick magazines.
>I don't understand
The top rifle is most sought for blame and is specifically banned or heavily regulated when really its just like any other semi-auto rifle and theres little difference between them.
>he government calling it a militia is meaningless
"it" what the people? It defined who was the militia is according to the US government. Arguing that the second amendment doesn't apply to them because they are not part of a militia is wrong and the law proves it.
gun ownership does not indicate political affiliation. Iowa was the first state to have gay marriage. Sioux City is a very ethnically diverse town. we are not all conservatives. we just have first hand experience with something that i am guessing you don't.
A fringe extremist group taking over a ranch isn't the same as the inevitable civil war that would ensue from a total gun ban. Militias wouldnt even spearhead; likely, dissenting generals and government officials would organize and take charge.
No, your argument is still dumb. At least the argument in the picture you gave. The second post you linked to actually presents a concrete argument, whereas your first post didn't
please stop trying to help us. we have several subject matter experts on hand, a dozen of which are just dying to tell you that strumgewher is german for "where did the polish neighbors go?"
More people die from "normal" guns every year. Mass shooting make up a minor amount of manual gun deaths and it's LOLable that humans think regulating assault weapons specifically will curb gun deaths.
Ok so people are being stupid about regulation. Does that mean we should have guns? Also, I'm guessing most people doing homicides are going to be stupid enough to not know that the second functions the same, which is why they might not buy it-maybe I'm wrong about that, idk
>Does that mean we should have guns?
Its not "because people are stupid" as the reason we should have guns, we have guns because its our right and those seeking regulation and stupid ones at that are literally against your rights.
> I'm guessing most people doing homicides are going to be stupid enough to not know that the second functions the same
Well even if they did, only like 350 people die a year to any kind of rifle. Its really a red herring and a complete non-issue.
The funny then is that military you talk about that we cant beat is that most off them believe in the constitution and will not follow orders from a corrupt tyrannical goverment and will actually join the militia.
All gun control is just gun centralization. Claiming that people with hallucinated authority (let's call government) have the right to own these guns but not civilians. Creating a different set of moral rules and laws for one group of people vs another.
>is a an offensive in the state of the US not made or has
Created when muskets were the most violent thing made. You're right, automatic laser guns that shoot black hole bullets that create vortexs that kill everyone within 50miles...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>ban every gun thats not a bolt action, lever action, single-action, double-action or breach loaded
>No I swear I'm not infringing on your rights, I just want to ban every gun you have except these very select few
we have no reason to believe anything you say. you have not dealt with us with any level of intellectual honesty or candor.
if your appeal is to the low information voter, rather than giving the voter all the info, then congrats. you are a tiny part of the problem and share something with the anti abortion movement.
>people pretending to care about banning guns/saving lives.
Here's the most aggravating part about this issue - you people don't really care one way or another. Politics is a team sport for you, and you are like the worst kind of redneck SEC fan. You love your team with a passion, and your only desire is to see your team score points and see the other team lose the argument... and if possible have them punished with more paperwork and red tape to have to go through just for daring to disagree with you.
>we brits are truly advanced
>we banned guns
>even though our homicide rate didn't go down
>So the same number of people are dying every year
>but at least we banned guns
The military used to use 1911's. Let's ban them motherfuckers too. WEAPONS OF WAR!!! (the new libcuck mating call)
nah, not a millennial, not white, for about half of the country what you are proposing sounds fucking stupid. why exactly would we side with the christian identity militia movement?
this is beyond your clearly well thought out supply lines. its basic and simple, if you are darker than a Greek person, don't side with the skin heads.
"We have guns because it's a right given by our forefathers"
This is literally the stupidest argument I hear. It makes progun people sound like entitled babies who can't be bothered to think about the well-being of the nation. "Our forefathers told us we'd have them" doesn't convince me that it's any good for the nation at all.
I value those 350 deaths over you idiots wanting to have toys. Find another hobby
The "protection from tyranny" and "self-defense" is a lot more relevant to this discussion
Dude honestly, how much do you even know about guns and gun laws? What problem would this solve exactly? Any gun that isn't semiautomatic is in the hands of a person is either gained from illegal means or legal means which are extremely difficult and regulated. Legal Automatic guns are virtually never used in crimes. The only reason to ban automatic guns is because you don't like them and unless you're an sjw that's not a good enough reason anon.
>"We have guns because it's a right given by our forefathers"
>This is literally the stupidest argument I hear. It makes progun people sound like entitled babies who can't be bothered to think about the well-being of the nation. "Our forefathers told us we'd have them" doesn't convince me that it's any good for the nation at all.
I didn't say that.
>I value those 350 deaths
you're literally crying about a non-issue
Knives and blunt objects kill more.
>Why do you need one? What purpose does it serve?
Bill of RIGHTS not bill of needs.
Why do you NEED a house that big? why do you NEED a car with that much horse power?
Oh yea because we have fucking libterty you commie