Trump Thread 2.0

[decay]

Give them up, be a subject of the state like the NZs and EU. Enjoy your false security while the criminals and terrorists take our lives.

well, they're already doing that, and they're enabled by access to this weapons technology, dipshit. is cause and effect a foreign concept to you?

[mrsleeve]

well, they're already doing that, and they're enabled by access to this weapons technology, dipshit. is cause and effect a foreign concept to you?

The tool, nor its accessibility cause harm nor equate to misuse alone. Last I checked inanimate object is inanimate.


Simply put mere access to firearms (of any type) alone is NOT A CAUSE AND EFFECT relationship in cases of misuse

But you are smart enough to know this already

[R3Z3N]

well, they're already doing that, and they're enabled by access to this weapons technology, dipshit. is cause and effect a foreign concept to you?

And yet you still want protection by who? The government that failed everyone. You will never uninvent the firearm or knife.

As mrsleeve stated, the tool is not the problem, it is not cause and effect. Because the tool exists does not mean it is good or bad. It just is. It is up to the user, and the law can only prosecute the user of that tool. The law still did not protect anyone. The guns that were not used did neither good nor bad. One gentleman in NZ did use a shotgun to protect himself. I applaud him for taking his defense into his own hands.

Being that you served, I question your ability to comprehend trying to disarm those you may have fought, thinking that you also may give up your own guns because "we live in society" You may bring the war to a minimum death toll, but the fringes will still attack, and you have no way to defend yourself. Unless you think only LEOs and government should be armed, but with a discharge, you should be at civilian status as you no longer serve. So protect yourself with your 911 call (with help arriving ~13min later) should the terrible ever happen, but anyone that loves their freedom will be armed ready for the wolf.

[Schnitzer318is]

Ahhh the 2A debate... I think it's on a 3 or 4 month cycle. I support 2A but I am not a fanatic like R3Z3N. If everyone in the country were armed... crime would still happen. Some of it would be stopped... most of it wouldn't. Just like today. Never understood that argument. I think 2A supporters go completely overboard with the idea that a significant amount of crime would be stopped if we were all armed and carrying which causes a loss of credibility. You're completely right R3Z3N, criminals will arm themselves regardless of the law. The gun did not ask to be misused, it is not evil.

I certainly wouldn't support any politician wanting to ban firearms. Now, background checks I have less of an issue with. I am also not a huge supporter of gun caches. But probably mostly because I am not a gun enthusiast or hobbyist. I don't vote based on that issue though... so don't jump down my throat about it. ;)

[decay]

you have no way to defend yourself.

i have a SAPI plate carrier that's rated for 7.62, and i prefer edged to projectile weapons if we're talking about a distance less than 5 meters. inside that radius i'm pulling a knife.

you think i have no way to defend myself because a gun is the only thing you know how to use.

[parkerbink]

Pointing out your hypocrisy? Sure.

I asked for specific examples and sources to back it up instead of "gross rationalizations."

I'm sorry. I'm confused as to why it's OK for you to do it, but no one else.

What are you rambling about?

[mbonder]

Are we just going to pass over the fact that it appears as though R3Z3N wants to defend the Constitution at all cost while in the same sentence saying that laws are useless? Am I the only one that sees the ridiculousness here of arguing that laws don't protect people while also saying that the laws for gun ownership are sacrosanct?

[mrsleeve]

what hes alluding to is that the US Constitution is the highest law in the land and that when one of the individual states passes legislation that is counter to that, that legislation carries no force of law. Hes not wrong from a principals stand point, yet in practice its not as clear or cut and dry.

Laws dont protect people........

"The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons" ; Cesare Beccaria
Crimes and Punishment 1764. Translated from the original Italian by Thomas Jefferson

[R3Z3N]

i have a SAPI plate carrier that's rated for 7.62, and i prefer edged to projectile weapons if we're talking about a distance less than 5 meters. inside that radius i'm pulling a knife.

you think i have no way to defend myself because a gun is the only thing you know how to use.

Good. In CA where I live, that plate carrier is a felony. I doubt you daily around with it, but if you do, I pray for your back and shoulders

There are laws such in NY that the size of the blade you defend yourself with may make you also a felon. IE if it is longer than the palm of your hand. It's complete ridiculousness.

I believe you can try to defend yourself, and a knife is a very good tool as some of the mass murderers in China have demonstrated. Let's go the English way and disarm you. Because a sharp stick can cause others harm, non one but the police should have them /sarcastic

[R3Z3N]

Are we just going to pass over the fact that it appears as though R3Z3N wants to defend the Constitution at all cost while in the same sentence saying that laws are useless? Am I the only one that sees the ridiculousness here of arguing that laws don't protect people while also saying that the laws for gun ownership are sacrosanct?

Sigh. You really don't understand the Bill of Rights do you? They are rights that no law should step on. They are inalienable, such that if the government steps on them, you have every right to ignore said law. However good luck getting past the treasonous judges and lawmakers that passed such laws. Hence the 2A. Once we get pushed over the edge, IE if God forbid our government starst killing religious groups, or banning speech, or implementing socialist ideologies. The reverse is also true, if groups like KKK or Gangs start attacking, you don't have to rely on the government for protection, or you can help the government get rid of the domestic threat.

[decay]

Good. In CA where I live, that plate carrier is a felony. I doubt you daily around with it, but if you do, I pray for your back and shoulders

i am also in california and no it isn't. you're not allowed to *have* one if you're a felon, but i'm not. (also, a plate carrier is about 30lbs of a total 100lb ruck march load...)

i know this because i have worn it in public, while trail-hiking with the police officer i used to date. she had no qualms about telling me what she could potentially arrest me on just to mess with me, but she was mostly just grumpy that my SAPIs are better than what her department issued her.

[CarpHunter]

he can defend his dwelling with in the limits of the laws imposed on him by the state in which he lives, that being CA you both are somewhat limited in what you can use and how much you can use it with in the narrow guidelines in which your state has deemed worthy of defending ones own life. but that is a topic for another day

So the states can "infringe" on guns. I thought that "shall not" happen.

Jesus why do I have to keep repeating my self on this. The 2A dose not mean you get to have battleships, and Hellfire's and Attack Gunships, and armed nuke capable b52s its about weapons fielded by the GI, average rifleman and what those equivalents may be.

Cool, then by your own admission you don't need military style weapons. Such as Ar's and the like. As that's not what your average citizen has. Remember in the context of the constitution there is no GI, or rifleman. Just citizens.

And the peasant farmers and fur-trading colonists, that ran off the red coats and started the fall of the British empire, had......... Say it with me NOW............ RIFLES!!! A superior firearm Technology than the British army's smooth bore muskets, and where did they get them from??? Oh yeah thats right the firearms manufacturers of the day!!!!

Not entirely true. They didn't have "rifles", they had muzzle loading muskets with rifled barrels. The British used muzzle loading muskets with smooth bore barrels. The only difference being the rifled barrel, which aided only in accuracy. Not in loading speed. The British actually had the more advanced tech in the form of the Ferguson rifle. Considered to be the first production breach loading rifle. Aiding both accuracy and reload speed. The British lost largely to tactics rather than tech. As most tech was coming out of Europe, not america.

Good for you, your no different than the several million military veterans out there. Again what does that have to do with anything

Wow, just wow. At least he earned his rights by serving. What did you do to earn yours? Other than being born in america.

I'll agree guns are just tools. So why are you guys so upset about losing one tool? You still get all the others, they don't want to ban all tools. Your basically throwing a temper tantrum that the government wants to take away your toy. It's sad really.

The thing i don't ever see mentioned is that none of you guys have any training, yet assume your going be Rambo. Unless your going threw tactical training, marksmanship, situational awareness, stress training, ect.. on a near daily basis none of you would be considered proficient with a firearm. It's delusional at best, dangerous at worst. My theory is most of you would freeze out of fear, cause most of you never have to deal with high stress situations on a regular basis. Hell, how many of you have even been in a real fist fight? Soldiers freeze up, yet somehow you guys with zero training, zero experience in life or death situations, are somehow gonna react perfectly. Sure.

I'm all for gun ownership, but I'm against bullshit excuses or using the constitution as a shield. If you want guns cause they're cool, or cause you feel scared without it, or you like to collect them, or cause you have a tiny dick and a gun makes you feel manlier, cool. Just be a man and say that. Stop hiding behind bullshit.

Look, america does have a gun issue, a mass/school shooting issue. There's no denying it. The question is what are you going to do to fix it? The answer from the right is hopes and prayers, from the left is policy. And I've never known hopes and prayers to change things.

[cale]

So why are you guys so upset about losing one tool?

Why are you so adamant at controlling one tool? The attempt to control or ban one particular designation of firearm is an appeal to emotion and ignorance, it gives the false impression of protecting lives when they are in fact seldom used in terms of scale for criminal purposes. I used to be on your side of the fence, you can probably go back in my post history and look up my blatant ignorance when it came to firearms and AR's, and being in favor of their strict control. There is zero rationale behind banning the platform beyond appeasing those who's worse experience with one has been hearing about them on the news.

As a Canadian I have access to, and have owned both AR-15's as well as several other semi-auto's with all the same scary features that people want to see banned. Some were restricted (registered serial number and enhanced storage requirements), others were treated the same as a bolt-action hunting rifle and I could go freely almost anywhere legally. Point being the ability to extend a buttstock, hold by a pistol grip or reload via detachable magazines has zero bearing whether or not they were going to contribute to increasing the amount of firearm related crime in my country. Your nations issues have nothing to do with types of firearms and everything to do with attitudes towards guns in general.

[CarpHunter]

Why are you so adamant at controlling one tool? The attempt to control or ban one particular designation of firearm is an appeal to emotion and ignorance, it gives the false impression of protecting lives when they are in fact seldom used in terms of scale for criminal purposes. I used to be on your side of the fence, you can probably go back in my post history and look up my blatant ignorance when it came to firearms and AR's, and being in favor of their strict control. There is zero rationale behind banning the platform beyond appeasing those who's worse experience with one has been hearing about them on the news.

I'm not adamant about it, I'm questioning why it bothers them so much. I'm not saying banning them will stop mass shootings. I don't think any reasonable person would assert that. What I will say is that a ban could affect the total number of casualties of such events. As that's simply a function of math, magazine size and fire rate being the variables. I agree it's an appeal to emotion. But so is the response from the pro camp. There wasn't this fervent animosity when George H.W. Bush signed the original assault weapons ban in 1994. Remember this was policy endorsed by Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. So is the animosity due to the policy or the party endorsing it? History says it's the party. They also don't whine about not getting access to the really cool stuff, hell even the sawn off shotgun ban was perfectly ok.

I'm more than familiar with firearms, I just don't have a fetish about them. To me they truly are a tool. I pick the best tool for the job it's needed in. And at no point did the ar platform fit. Their fun to shoot, but there are better choices for the areas of use a civilian would need a firearm. Simply because they weren't designed for civilian purposes. If you want one cause you just want one, cool. But don't bs me, and don't use the constitution as shitty justification for your fetish. Be honest about it.

As a Canadian I have access to, and have owned both AR-15's as well as several other semi-auto's with all the same scary features that people want to see banned. Some were restricted (registered serial number and enhanced storage requirements), others were treated the same as a bolt-action hunting rifle and I could go freely almost anywhere legally. Point being the ability to extend a buttstock, hold by a pistol grip or reload via detachable magazines has zero bearing whether or not they were going to contribute to increasing the amount of firearm related crime in my country. Your nations issues have nothing to do with types of firearms and everything to do with attitudes towards guns in general.

Firstly, not my nation. I do currently live in the US tho. But don't plan on staying. And yes, a large part of the issue is Americans attitudes towards guns. But more so the mythology built up around them and fetishsizing of them. Example being the wild west and cowboys, not knowing that guns weren't allowed inside town limits during that time period. Or that it was the fear of being kicked out of town that kept law and order, not guns. There's also the divide caused by location. Rural people are far more likely to be accustomed to gu s than urban. That alone creates an optics issue.

Edit* Before anyone comes back with " I need an AR because _______ ". Bullshit. It's like telling me you need that F350 on giant tires, 6 inch body lift, brush guard with winch, and a hitch with 6 different size balls, is " Cause you never know, could slip off the road in the snow, or get stuck 4 wheeling. ". When you live in an area that gets 1 inch of snow a year, you dont own a fucking trailer, and the closet you get to 4 wheeling is driving over the damn median at Wal-Mart cause you can't drive your micro penis mobile. It's bullshit.

[decay]

remember how this was about bump stocks?

as someone who used the M4/AR15 platform for years, i can tell you that bump stocks are utter crap and you will have trouble staying on the paper with them, even if you already know how to shoot.

that weapon weighs 7 pounds (as the army issues it) and is too light to handle 5.56 at a cyclic rate. for fuck's sake, the SAW (M249) weighs more like 20 and that gun is still kinda jumpy for my tastes.

i mean, i guess that's my individual preference, but i'd rather put one shot on target than blow an entire magazine going area-effect.

try using a bump stock for hunting; you'll go home empty-handed.

home defense? you are aware a NATO round will penetrate not just your wall but your neighbors' as well? how much do you like your neighbors and their kids? get a mossberg and your first deterrent step is rack the slide. anyone with bad intent is going to know what chambering a 20ga round sounds like and at that point you have a moving target whose threat decreases with its distance from whatever door/window it came in.

you're a 2A supporter? fine. but seriously, find another hill to die on, this one has no value.