Nope, huh?
Same kind of thing goes for murderers. A ban on guns will hold them back from getting a gun just as much as a ban on weed kept you from getting stoned.
It will probably stop the law abiding guy who just wants a pistol for self defense or target practice from getting a gun, though.
Yes, it did!
You don't need an assault rifle, 1,000 rounds of ammo and body armor for self-defense and target practice unless you're planning to slaughter people in a school or shopping market.
I'M NOT A LIBERAL...BUT NO...NO IT DID NOT.
shareWhy would you be against body armor? You literally cannot kill anyone with it, however if someone tries to kill me it would save my life. Also who are you to determine how much ammo someone who is fearing for their life needs? Who is Diaper Joe to determine that seeing how he gets tax payer funded security? Should he be limited to one security guard who only gets 10 rounds?
shareYou have no right to tell others what they need. Period.
An AR15 is not an assault rifle, Keeliar.
1000rds of ammo is nothing and again, none of your business.
You're a gun nut who believes a toddler holding an assault rifle and ammo is fine. I hope child welfare will be alerted to this thread in case you have any small children.
shareAn AR15 is not an assault rifle, Keeliar.
I'm a law abiding citizen who believes in the Constitution and teaching children how to handle dangerous objects. Instead of telling them to have an irrational fear of them.
There is no law against teaching your children how to handle and operate firearms. Still a free country. Dumbass.
Only a gun nut believes a toddler has the capacity to understand how to handle an assault rifle with live ammo.
shareFirst, AR15's are not assault rifles. Keep repeating it, just makes you look like an idiot.
Second, there was no live ammo. That is another lie. The rifle and magazine were empty.
Only a fool like you thinks they can't. I'd love to show you a video of an 8yr old girl running an AR, doing mag changes and knocking down steel plates like a champ. But your fragile little mind would pop.
This is a toddler with an assault rifle.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTY1s9u0Yjf7ZzemtR8AA3H_F_Qe6lz0KKVa63np2oYIn75xcs&s
That's not an assault rifle. In fact, it's not even a rifle at all but I don't expect you to know the difference. Your kind never does. You just deal in hysterics and hyperbole.
PS, it's not loaded either, neither is the magazine.
Legislators define assault weapons, not you. It's an assault rifle.
shareI don't make these definitions, I just know and understand them. An AR15 is not an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is not defined by legislators. It is defined by the firearms/military industry. An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle with a large capacity magazine firing an intermediate cartridge, relative to the rifle cartridges chambering the "battle rifles" that came before them. The first of which was the German Sturmgewehr 44, which came about late WWII. The Russian AK 47 soon followed in the late 1940's. The military played with the M14 for a while but eventually needed something lighter in weight and recoil. The M16 came about 12yrs later, followed by the M4 carbine. Variations of which are still in service today. You see, without the full auto capability, it is NOT an assault rifle. Period.
"Assault weapon" is a political term with no meaning. You cannot even define it.
LOL! No, it's defined by legislators. This is a nation of laws, not gun manufacturers' branding.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 clearly defines assault weapon. I don't get the impression you understand how the U.S. works.
Uh, no. "Assault rifle" is as I described above, not a term created or defined by legislators. "Assault rifle" is a military weapon. Not fucking product branding.
"Assault weapon" is a vague political term, used to demonize certain firearms based on appearance.
"LOL"??? As you make one of the dumbest comments I've read in a long time.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 clearly defines assault weapon. I don't get the impression you understand how the U.S. works.
shareNo it doesn't. It's an arbitrary term used to demonize guns that look a certain way, while ignoring those that function the same but look more innocuous. It changes with the wind. It's a term used to manipulate ignorant people, like you.
The 1994 ban also did absolutely nothing to deter crime. It only negatively affected law abiding citizens.
Show ONE instance of a toddler with a loaded "assault rifle". Lying, leftist piece of shit.
shareYou are the nut- calling others nuts with no evidence.
shareMany of those children grew up to defend the country in the military or became law enforcement
The number of responsible gun owners compared to irresponsible is not even close.
Now if we go after people who want to obtain and carry illegal guns that would make an impact.
But when criminals are caught with an illegal gun, Democrat prosecutors and judges reduce the charge to j walking.
Democrats keep those who want to obtain illegal guns out of jail.
It's crazy, but just keep quiet, the joke is on them. Their policies will only get certain groups killed. Shhhh... just let it happen. Watch the numbers
You don't need an assault rifle, 1,000 rounds of ammo and body armor for self-defense and target
It's irrelevant, because your analogy is lame, but I didn't use weed for about 20 years (maybe 20 times in 20 years) when you've got a professional job, you have to keep on the down low, everyplace has an uptight person close to the top, even on the Left Coast. Nowadays I use weed maybe twice a month, tops. I have to have a window where I know I don't have to do anything for 5 hours, and those are rare.
shareHow is it lame? It shows that laws don't inhibit behaviors as much as we'd like.
share20 times in 20 years? You are not the target of this post.
He means habitual users, like me lol.
And no, it being illegal in my area until 10 years ago, never stopped me. In fact, legalization hasn't changed a lot of my behaviors from when it was illegal, but now I'm aware of it because it's not necessary now.
It did discourage me from marijuana, yes. I also didn't drink all that much until I was 21. I'm one of those goody goody types who doesn't like breaking rules, though.
shareTalk about a false equivalence!
If there’s a case I’m not aware of where a maniac slaughtered multiple school children with his $20 bag your analogy might hold more weight.
Gun control works. It’s fine if you don’t support it, but with stricter rules the death count will definitely fall.
It's not about equivalence in the impact of the two crimes. It's just a point to illustrate that stricter laws will only affect people who are law-abiding.
shareIn the eyes of the law, Ariel Castro was a law-abiding citizen for the 10 years he was holding 3 girls captive in his house. Is that someone you want having a gun? How many school shooters didn't have a criminal record before they shot people in a school. Are these the people you want having a gun?
shareBetter that a few who shouldn't can have them legally than the entire law-abiding population being denied ownership while criminals freely arm themselves with illegal weapons. That's what's going in in Mexico now. If you abide by the law in Mexico, it's next to impossible to own a gun, but narcos and sicarios run wild, shooting in the streets with fully-automatic weapons.
shareI don't believe that gun ownership should be a perk of good behaviour. The perk of being law-abiding is that you stay out of jail.
shareOK, but gun ownership is still going to be a perk of bad behavior, because any thug with a few Benjamins can and will buy a gun from an illegal dealer easier than you or I can buy one now from Academy Sports.
It is recognized as a God-given right actually.
shareGod didn't give Americans any rights.
shareYour argument is with the founding fathers then. Go correct them.
shareOf course, but it's just not God-given.
shareprove it
shareYou did it for me. It was given by your founding fathers.
shareFACT: Individual rights have naturally occured since the beginning of human history. Prove me wrong.
shareNo it is seen as a God-given right by them, meaning that they admitted it is not in their control.
shareSo because criminals use guns, against innocent people, you think it's a good idea to disarm the innocent people?
shareThe point was that it's impossible to the government to know who is actually innocent. And I didn't say I want to disarm anyone. I'm not advocating for anything to be taken away. I'm advocating stricter gun laws to change the mentality that everyone has and needs a gun.
shareLaws that affect only law abiding citizens are not ever going to deter or prevent crime. Gun laws don't do what you want them to. Period.
shareYou're telling me that there aren't people who have avoided killing someone because they were afraid of getting caught?
shareWhat???
shareDon't you think that people have avoiding killing someone because it's illegal and are scared to get caught? There's a difference between being law-abiding and being innocent. Someone who hasn't killed doesn't make them immune to wanting to killing someone but refrain from doing it because they don't want to get caught.
shareFACT: It is the bill of rights not the bill of needs. Prove me wrong.
shareIf is false equivalence since you're allowing mentally unstable individuals extremely EASY ACCESS to GUNS!
Even the 18-year-old white supremacist gun nut who slaughtered in Buffalo gloated how easy it was for him.
I bet if you went to a strip club or a dive bar in your town with a few hundred or a thousand bucks right now and spoke to the right people, you could go home with a gun faster and easier than i could come home with a legal one from Cabela's or Academy Sports.
shareMost guns are bought in states with lax gun laws and illegally brought into states with stronger gun laws. Obviously, the lax gun law states are willfully selling guns to criminals.
shareThat's another lie. People aren't going to Missouri to buy guns at gun shops and haul to Chicago. Idiot.
shareYes, they are! And we both agree that you're an idiot.
shareNo, they are not. Keeliar.
shareThey're called Iron Pipeline States. You're an idiot for not knowing that.
shareI'll say it again. People are not going to gun shops, buying guns and selling them in places like Chicago. That's illegal. An ATF agent on the phone for ten minutes could find out where that firearm was bought and by whom. Those guns are illegal, usually stolen. You're an imbecile for not knowing that. You are utterly clueless.
share"People aren't going to Missouri to buy guns at gun shops and haul to Chicago."
They're called Iron Pipeline States. You're an idiot for not knowing that.
Repeating lies and misinformation doesn't make them less false.
I'll say it again. People are not going to gun shops, buying guns and selling them in places like Chicago. That's illegal. An ATF agent on the phone for ten minutes could find out where that firearm was bought and by whom. Those guns are illegal, usually stolen. You're an imbecile for not knowing that. You are utterly clueless.
It sounds like YOU live in an Iron Pipeline State responsible for the country's gun violence.
shareInanimate objects aren't responsible for violence. In fact, they do absolutely nothing on their own, they're inanimate.
Repeating lies and misinformation doesn't make them less false.
I'll say it again. People are not going to gun shops, buying guns and selling them in places like Chicago. That's illegal. An ATF agent on the phone for ten minutes could find out where that firearm was bought and by whom. Those guns are illegal, usually stolen. You're an imbecile for not knowing that. You are utterly clueless.
Soldiers use "inanimate objects" to win wars.
Iron Pipeline State exists. Your denial doesn't change that.
They also use vehicles, communications equipment and toilet paper. They're still inanimate objects.
I didn't say it didn't exist. Jesus, you are dense. I'll say it again. People are not going to gun shops, buying guns and selling them in places like Chicago. That's illegal. An ATF agent on the phone for ten minutes could find out where that firearm was bought and by whom. Those guns are illegal, usually stolen. You're an imbecile for not knowing that. You are utterly clueless.
Gun control in this country would work as well as our war on drugs and our former war on alcohol.
The gun culture is far too big in this nation, not comparable to other nations. An outright ban on all or most guns is not possible. Few if any Democrats would even support that.
We'd be better off moving forward with the idea to make the age to buy 21, but also allow those younger to still practice with a licensed trainer with permission from a parent until 21. Also harsher punishment on parents if their guns are stolen from a child in their house.
"An outright ban on all or most guns is not possible. "
Nobody ever said this.
It’s not a false equivalence at all, people who don’t give a damn about the law will not follow it. And all gun control is going to do is disarm law abiding citizens. We could invest in armed security to protect schools but your cult leader diaper Joe doesn’t think they should get armed security yet the defund the police demokkkrats do.
shareYou're equating gun regulation with no guns at all. Nobody ever said that.
share“Gun regulation” will make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves meaning more innocent people will die. Also Beta Male said he would confiscate guns, is he lying?
share"law abiding citizens to defend themselves"
It sounds like you want to defund the police.
Nice strawman attempt.
share"law abiding citizens to defend themselves"
You're the one who believes the police are useless.
Please show me where I said I wasn’t in favor of police protection? Because just about every other post by me has been in favor of that.
shareNewsflash, the police are not responsible for your protection, never were. When seconds count, they're minutes away. Your personal safety is YOUR responsibility. I'm sorry that triggers your crippling insecurity.
share"police are not responsible for your protection"
LOL!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
shareExactly! It says police have
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large"
That's what I wrote! They're public servants paid to serve and protect the public.
No, they are not "paid to protect the public". They're paid to enforce the law. They're paid to show up when called. However, I'll say it again, they are not responsible for your personal safety. That is YOUR responsibility. Always has been. God, you people have no understanding of anything.
If police were responsible for your personal protection, they would be held accountable for ANY and ALL crimes committed upon victims. You live in a fantasy world created and perpetuated by people with guns.
"They're paid to enforce the law."
So police don't investigate crime nor direct traffic nor help school children across the street?
Police don't do only one thing. Attached is a career track for LA police:
https://www.joinlapd.com/career-ladders
"protecting life and property" is under police officer III
How did you become so clueless?
I will repeat for the dimwitted among us, the police are NOT responsible for your personal protection.
Last I checked, investigating crime is part of "enforcing the law", you fucking retard.
BTW, "To Protect and Serve" is the motto of many police around the country and in foreign countries, too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_protect_and_to_serve
Gun control does not work. Well, it works for its intended purpose, to control the population. A controlled population is not free. So go fuck yourself.
Banning guns will serve two purposes. It will disarm most law abiding citizens, leaving them vulnerable to police which you've decided to defund and declaw. It will make criminals out of those law abiding citizens that choose not to comply. How does either of those make anything better???
Here is a perfect description of gun control in meme form. Sums it up beautifully.
https://i.imgur.com/iTL9Gsh.jpg
Perfect!
shareYay! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Fantastic analogy!
shareGun control does work which is the reason other Westernized countries have used it successfully. The U.S. is the only Westernized country with daily mass shootings.
shareIf you think a mass shooting is the worst thing that can happen, you're a fucking moron.
If three gangbangers get shot in a shootout with a rival gang, that counts as a "mass shooting".
Let's prosecute criminals instead.
You're OK with 6-year-olds dying from combat gun wounds normally seen only in warfare.
shareWhere did I say that??? I didn't. I said there were worse things than one mass shooting. Right now Ukraine is living it.
A gunshot wound is a gunshot wound. Bullets make a mess of tissue, that's kind of the point. They made a bigger mess in WWI and WWII.
"A gunshot wound is a gunshot wound"
That's stupid! Medical doctors are now retraining to treat gunshot wounds previously seen only in combat. Assault weapons do much more damage to the human body. Many of those children could only be identified through DNA.
Ukraine is a deflection and has nothing to do with the daily gun carnage in the U.S..
That is pure hysterics from a clueless fool. How many bullets have you dug out of dead critters? I'm guessing zero.
These mass shootings get the most media attention but statistically speaking, these rifles are rarely used in crime. They're also about half as destructive as your average deer rifle.
Ukraine is not a deflection, it's a valid example that unfortunately for you, does not fit your narrative.
No, you people completely ignore the daily carnage. The carnage perpetrated by criminals that you enable. The carnage caused by policies you voted for. Committed by people you won't let us talk about. The blood is on YOUR hands, not mine.
Now, you're projecting! Your cult are gun nuts who arm criminals, crazies and kiddies. Gun deaths run rampant in gun lax law states like Texas, Tennessee and Arizona.
Medical doctors are complaining about the combat gun wounds they treat. You need to leave your self-imposed bubble.
I'll say it again, AR's and similar rifles are very infrequently used in crime. You're posting nonsense that simply isn't true. Obviously taking talking points from the 60 Minutes specials as truth. "ALL" rifles account for less than 3% of those used in crime. Most of those are cheap, cut down .22 rifles, not AR15's.
Correction, violence is rampant in democrat-controlled cities.
Self imposed bubble? I guarantee I've been to more places than you have, dumb fucking kid.
Gun control works.
A ban on guns will hold them back from getting a gun just as much as a ban on weed kept you from getting stoned.
NOBODY is talking about "a ban on guns".
Its not surprising this discussion never gets anywhere if people dont make that distinction.
No. Of course they won't call for a ban all at once. First it's "scary black "assault rifles" then next year it will be semiautomatics, then handguns, then pump shotguns, and eventually maybe we'll be left with singleshot .22s and shotguns that you have to jump through a million hoops to buy legally. Meanwhile, every Hood Rat and Gang Banger will be strutting around town with his illegal arsenal, untouched by the law because that would be "profiling".
shareHow about keeping all the same variety of guns,
But have licenses , ant tests/training , and background checks , and gun lockers?
That's all well and good, but you have to remember that the people who commit the most gun crimes would just bypass all that with illegal purchases.
For every one school shooter who uses a legally purchased gun to kill, there are thousands and thousands of legal gun owners who never would dream of committing a crime, and thousands and thousands of criminals who use their easily obtained illegal guns as a tool of their trade.
yeah , its not much , but its all you can do. The law abiding people still get their guns
It would barely have an effect , but at least you'd have made a token effort ,
and then you could proudly say :
"We're not a country that will sell a lethal .22 semi auto rifle to a 13 year old with no questions asked"
I don't think any state in the USA will allow dealers to sell a 13 year old any kind of gun, even with questions. I know Texas won't do it without parental permission unless you are over 18 for rifles and shotguns and 21 for handguns, and if Texas won't who else would? Even then, you still have to fill out ATF forms and provide State issued ID to buy a gun.
People imagine that Americans can just go into a store and buy a gun like the way they would buy a bag of potato chips, but it just isn't so.
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-in-texas/
I was just going off one of a post from earlier . someone said they did it .
after a google seems big difference between owning and buying .
Dad can give son a rifle at any age in most states , which is at least a "check" of sorts
That will only affect law abiding citizens. How about licensing, training and background checks before you exercise your freedom of speech? Do you want the gov't to control who gets to speak and who doesn't? What about the seizure of property? What about due process? Where does it end???
shareThat's great, but just in case... we always will be operating on that premise. So you'll just have to deal with that information.
shareWhy does it have to be an all or nothing scenario?
Robust gun regulations wont keep 100% of guns out of the wrong people's hands, but roadblocks will certainly prevent some shady people from obtaining them. Criminals are nothing if not stupid.
What your basically saying is that gun control will always have flaws, therefore essentially unfettered access is the only reasonable solution.
I'm more in the line of saying that in a country where there are thousands of criminals with illegal guns, it's frightening to think that the Government would enact laws that make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from owning them.
Why doesn't anyone talk about sweeping the murder cities of Chicago and Detroit for illegal guns? Why is the gun debate always just about making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns?
"Why is the gun debate always just about making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns?"
It's about both debates and to be honest, we don't even do much to make sure criminals can't get guns. I live in Texas and literally any asshole can buy a gun from any other asshole with no questions asked and it's perfectly legal.
Where is this "unfettered access" you speak of? How about this, let's start with educating ALL liberals so they can have this conversation and actually know what the fuck they're talking about???
There is no "unfettered access". Guns are regulated from the time they're manufactured, to the distributor, to the dealer and finally to the buyer. There is a paper trail and government regulation from one end to the other. No other consumer product is handled that way. One must fill out a form 4473, provide a valid ID and pass a background check before purchase. What other consumer product is handled in such a way? Felons cannot buy firearms. If the buyer is not a felon, how are you going to make the distinction? Invent a mind reader? By restricting everyone?
Gun control is flawed because it seeks to control the wrong set of people. Whether by design or not. You can't stop criminals by punishing law abiding citizens. Gun control is wrong-headed right from the start. There are two ways of dealing with criminal behavior.
1. Stop producing criminals. There's a whole slew of things we could be doing differently to make this happen but it's not the quick and easy fix everyone wants.
2. Harshly punish those who do commit crimes. Prosecute them fervently and make prison time a hardship. Execute those on death row. Those assholes should be worked so hard they don't have the energy to fight.
"One must fill out a form 4473, provide a valid ID and pass a background check before purchase."
From a licensed dealer maybe. Are there any such restrictions if I meet some guy in a chilis parking lot to buy an AR-15? Where is the paper trail for that transaction?
Not maybe, absolutely.
Do you have a paper trail if you meet a guy at Chili's to buy a stereo? Do you ask the government's permission to buy or sell your other property?
Your the one claiming guns are regulated and tracked from manufacturer all the way to purchase, while conveniently ignoring that there is a perfectly legal and simple way around all that.
Having an easily accessible way for anybody to legally buy a gun with nothing more than the money in their pocket pretty much makes background checks worthless.
You're the one who thinks regulating inanimate objects will affect the behavior of evil people.
That's because guns are property and you don't need permission from the gov't to sell your property.
Why doesn't this happen in other first-world countries?
And very few people have said "ban" guns, be honest about it.
Weed also hasn't caused mass murder.
Bullshit. Biden talked out of his ass about bans yesterday. Stop pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining.
shareCertain guns, you know, the ones used in most mass shootings?
You have no integrity.
Oh yes, that makes it better. It's fine if he only wants to ban certain guns, even if it is the most popular models, a huge swath of the inventory. It's not like everyone and their uncle owns a 9mm pistol or a 5.56 rifle. A ban is a ban.
You have absolutely no fucking brains.