The Gun Control Debate Thread - Controlling autism since 2022

[The Foxtrot]

Barrel length for a longarm is 16 inches, not 18.

That would exclude revolvers, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case in the law, but idk, might be a carveout for it that I'm unaware of.

I mistyped, my bad.
Well, revolvers don't have barrel lengths over 16 inches as a rule, correct? I'm just going off the ATF's official definition.

 

[Puff]

I mistyped, my bad.
Well, revolvers don't have barrel lengths over 16 inches as a rule, correct? I'm just going off the ATF's official definition.

The way it's written makes it sound like 18-21 year olds can buy revolver pistols. Whether that's the rule though. Also there are revolver rifles, but they're pretty damn uncommon.

 

[Justtocheck]

And the grifters are now coming out... you gunfags are pathetic in how you eat this shit up.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

And the grifters are now coming out... you gunfags are pathetic in how you eat this shit up.

/k/ demands freedom, so get fucked.

 

[Justtocheck]

Yeah, this thread should be locked. It's nothing more than @Justtocheck throwing fits at Anons and virtue signalling. There's no actual 'debate' of any sort going on.

I'm sorry you are losing and want to throw in the towel, kinda like Ruzzia in Ukraine.

Edit: I have a feeling you gunfags will run out of ideas soon. Listening to a ghoul talking about Glocks vs 1911 again. lol

 

[The Foxtrot]

I'm sorry you are losing and want to throw in the towel, kinda like Ruzzia in Ukraine.

Edit: I have a feeling you gunfags will run out of ideas soon. Listening to a ghoul talking about Glocks vs 1911 again. lol

Cope harder. Nobody here is disarming.

 

[TheRetardKing]

 

[Acertard]

View attachment 3524305

Guns don't kill people, the government does

 

[Particle Bored]

Semantics. That's what you gunfags use to justify and muddly selling dangerous things and owning dangerous "toys". Totally hypocritical and gay.

We're talking about laws and regulations. Legislation and criminal code. You want to ban/regulate something. We're asking what you want to ban/regulate. Specifically. First you say semiauto rifles. Then you imply only handguns should be allowed. Then you reference some other guy's post that says all guns should be banned. At every turn when trying to nail down specifics, or point out contradictions in your reasoning ("No military-issue weapons!" / "If you want a gun just get a Glock!"), you bitch and dodge, and illustrate that you don't "know your stuff" nearly as well as you think you do.

Either you're just running off standard MSM outrage talking points, or you're ducking and dodging to avoid outright stating that you want to ban all civilian firearm ownership, or restrict it to the point of being useless for its intended purpose. Which is it?
Narrator: "The answer is 'C: All of the above.'"

Firearms are the great equalizer. They are what give pregnant mothers and feeble grandfathers a standing chance against a more physically capable aggressor. They are what give a civilian populace a standing chance against violently oppressive organizations, be they criminal or governmental (make all the cracks about Waco and drone strikes you want; the history of guerrilla warfare against more technologically advanced adversaries illustrates that country bumpkins, of a range of ethnicities, are less of a pushover than you'd like to imply). A willingness to forfeit said weaponry, or strip it from fellow citizens, evinces a surrender of autonomy and fealty to the mercy of state which many people of reasonable intellect and good conscious simply cannot abide.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

snip

There's no use arguing with something that is deliberately hostile to the very way of thinking and would likely just lead them to double down like a true believer taking out infidels (pic slightly related):


You could have just summed it up in four words,
"Vire LIBRE OU MOURIR"
Also known as:
"LIVE FREE OR DIE"
Coincidentally also the motto of the site and it's host. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Acertard]

There's no use arguing with something that is deliberately hostile to the very way of thinking and would likely just lead them to double down like a true believer taking out infidels (pic slightly related):
View attachment 3524989

You could have just summed it up in four words,
"Vire LIBRE OU MOURIR"
Also known as:
"LIVE FREE OR DIE"
Coincidentally also the motto of the site and it's host. Ironic, isn't it?

Guns laws totally work perfectly all the time, didn't you know? Just look at all that murder in Mexico, Brazil, and Canada with their attempts at very strong gun laws. Extremely efficient.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Guns laws totally work perfectly all the time, didn't you know? Just look at all that murder in Mexico, Brazil, and Canada with their attempts at very strong gun laws. Extremely efficient.

When you follow anti-gun retard logic they basically want all guns to disappear (unrealisticif not impossible), and don't care if you can't defend yourself/family. They'll point at a place like Japan with low gun crime but ignore that they're a tiny island with more strict laws in general. They also have very few niggers and spics, if ours vanished most gun crime would go with them.

 

[Acertard]

When you follow anti-gun retard logic they basically want all guns to disappear (unrealisticif not impossible), and don't care if you can't defend yourself/family. They'll point at a place like Japan with low gun crime but ignore that they're a tiny island with more strict laws in general. They also have very few niggers and spics, if ours vanished most gun crime would go with them.

Even culturally, Japan appears to have strict sets of expectations placed upon you.
Being amongst the working class is hell, I hear. Prolly what causes a lot of suicides over there.

 

[The Foxtrot]

When you follow anti-gun retard logic they basically want all guns to disappear (unrealisticif not impossible), and don't care if you can't defend yourself/family. They'll point at a place like Japan with low gun crime but ignore that they're a tiny island with more strict laws in general. They also have very few niggers and spics, if ours vanished most gun crime would go with them.

Not to mention that Japan never had widespread private ownership of firearms to begin with, and all imports are tightly controlled anyway so smuggling them in any meaningful capacity is extremely difficult, borderline impossible. Ergo, it's easy for Japan to have blanket bans on firearms, there isn't much to ban/confiscate in the first place.

There are more firearms than people in the USA, tons of people who know how to manufacture them, and a pervasive "gun culture" across the country. Even if you did somehow manage to pass a blanket ban on firearms by repealing the 2nd Amendment (which would take WAY more political power than the gun grabbers have ever had), how are you going to actually get rid of all the existing firearms in circulation? For that matter, how are you going to prevent millions of pissed off citizens who you just made criminals from deciding that regime change is in order?

The only way you'd even begin to make any progress towards disarming the public would be literal door-to-door searches, and I'm not so sure there are many cops willing to risk entire neighborhoods gunning them down.

 

[Puff]

When you follow anti-gun retard logic they basically want all guns to disappear (unrealisticif not impossible), and don't care if you can't defend yourself/family. They'll point at a place like Japan with low gun crime but ignore that they're a tiny island with more strict laws in general. They also have very few niggers and spics, if ours vanished most gun crime would go with them.

I would accept a gun ban if all weapons were vaporized. That includes ones owned by governments. And the designs for them. They'd just make more for themselves.
Then I'd get a machine shop rolling. Even the playing field a bit.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

If banning guns is a good thing, why do only retards argue for it?

 

[Justtocheck]

If banning guns is a good thing, why do only retards argue for it?

Because we cannot compete evolutionarily with Supreme Gentlemen chads who carry, so we must come with underhanded methods to gain the advantage in this Darwinian world. It's all about pussy.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

Haven't been here in a while, let's see what happening.

Oh look, @Justtocheck is still acting like a spastic child.

 

[Justtocheck]

Haven't been here in a while, let's see what happening.

Oh look, @Justtocheck is still acting like a spastic child.

I'm having fun at least, sheepdog. Not VERY SERIOUSLY fantasizing about how to stop a mass shooter while NDing the glock into the drywall.

 

[Mr Bunny]

The only way you'd even begin to make any progress towards disarming the public would be literal door-to-door searches, and I'm not so sure there are many cops willing to risk entire neighborhoods gunning them down.

That what it comes down too doesn't it.
The gun debate is just a shouting match in the wind until the anti gun side can explain how they will have to deal with that.

Besides worse comes to worst, the US state would have to try and do what the British state failed to do to the Irish on a scale of millions if they tried to disarm the American public.

If the bongs couldn't actually enforce disarmament on the population of one million people in a landmass of 5,459 square miles, then what chance does the US federal government have with a population of over three hundred million in a landmass of 3.8 million square miles?

Gun behind every blade of grass, motherfuckers.