Debate a worthless newfag about guns because for some reason people gave this fucking retard attention for 5 pages

[The Bronze Golem]

The NFA is strictly to keep parity away from the civilian population and nothing more, which is directly against the spirit of the Constitution and the wording of the 2nd itself. Your bullshit talking points are tired.

Why do you look at the Constitution and the 2nd amendment, and by that logic basically all amendments and laws everywhere else in the world, as some concrete, solid, set in stone law of nature that cannot be shifted or broken?

Maybe certain aspects of them are outdated? No longer effective or functional?

The NFA is a poor tax, a de facto ban without technically being a ban, that first was meant to ban handguns from private ownership until the point was raised that someone could cut down a rifle/shotgun, which led to the regulation of barrel length and the disposal of the handgun "ban." It is a proudly admitted overreach that used criminals, who did not use any of the "banned" weapons, as an excuse.
Please do research into your arguments before using sarcasm.
Now fuck off.

In the St valentine's day massacre 1929 in Chicago, they used Thompsons, which that event was one of the direct things that made the consideration for the NFA. Yes I am aware there were other things going on, like you said the whole mess with pistols, which I'm glad never got through. But still

 

[Club Sandwich]

Ten years later in 1934 they enacted the NFA act

the National Firearms Act targeted handguns originally. it was also found (if you read the arguments surrounding it's passage) that weapons of war were Constitutionally protected, so a short barrel shotgun could be restricted by the Act but the handgun or rifle could not. the NFA also regulated explosives, but their use in crime was also incredibly rare.

after the Act, up until the 60's you could file by mail and receive your firearm, including a Machine Gun, directly to your door typically 3 to 6 weeks (since it was the mail afterall). By 1968 this was curtailed and you had you buy your MG at the dealer up until 1986. there has been three (3) incidents of a crime with a registered NFA weapon, one of which was by a police officer.

legal MGs simply aren't a thing used in crime, and illegal MGs are extremely rare to the point of single digits. possession of an illegal MG is more common than actual shooting incidents with one.

 

[The Bronze Golem]

the National Firearms Act targeted handguns originally. it was also found (if you read the arguments surrounding it's passage) that weapons of war were Constitutionally protected, so a short barrel shotgun could be restricted by the Act but the handgun or rifle could not. the NFA also regulated explosives, but their use in crime was also incredibly rare.

after the Act, up until the 60's you could file by mail and receive your firearm, including a Machine Gun directly to your door. By 1968 this was curtailed and you had you buy your MG at the dealer up until 1986. there has been three (3) incidents of a crime with a registered NFA weapon, one of which was by a police officer.

legal MGs simply aren't a thing used in crime, and illegal MGs are extremely rare to the point of single digits. possession of an illegal MG is more common than actual shooting incidents with one.

Yes yes. I'm aware of all of this, but we're getting a little off topic here and dialing things too far back in time. We're talking about right now in 2022, with the types of guns you can by right now. Not 50 or 80 years ago.

 

[Club Sandwich]

types of guns you can by right now

the handgun and rifle, of which, the handgun results in more federally defined "mass murders" or "active shooter incidents" with homicides resulting from injuries sustained during the incident than the rifle, probably owing to being more portable and easily concealed, as well as easier to deploy in most situations. there are also greater numbers of handguns used in crimes of all types in general.

 

[The Bronze Golem]

the handgun and rifle, of which, the handgun results in more federally defined "mass murders" or "active shooter incidents" with homicides resulting from injuries sustained during the incident than the rifle, probably owing to being more portable and easily concealed, as well as easier to deploy in most situations. there are also greater numbers of semi-automatic handguns used in crimes of all types in general.

I understand this is all true. And at the end of the day there is no one weapon that is the typical or "Main" usage of a mass shooting, or any mass murder for that matter. I just notice for some reason with all the high profile shootings it's always something like an AR-15, or AK-47. I always questioned what that was? To me I honestly think it is because of their effectiveness at those very very specific types of shootings that these people commit (close range, high volume of fire, multiple people, indiscriminate,) That's not to say these guns should be banned outright FOREVER or that they're somehow the fuckin cause of the shootings, like so many idiot journalists suggest.

These people will still do these mass shootings regardless of what kind of weapons they had. And that's been proven. Obviously something is making people commit these shootings, and the guns themselves are not that thing. Yes, Semi-Automatic, intermediate caliber weapons existed for 50, 60, 70 years, and mass shootings of these levels DID Not happen back then despite those guns existing. So yes, there is something else going on clearly.

However I just think doing nothing about it, is kind of, I don't want to say wrong, I'd say the word is more, Weird? It's just weird to me I don't know. And that's not to say these laws have to be permanent. If we can fix whatever the fuck is wrong with our society, we can repeal these laws. But yeah, that's wishful thinking and these politicians likely want to keep them in for as long as possible.

That is to say a law like that will ever pass, which your responses all here today, I feel represent the feelings of most people, and such a law will never see the light of day. If that's a good or bad thing, ultimate that's up for you to decide.

 

[Club Sandwich]

i'm going to make this a separate post because it is a separate line of thought, and an important one.

in any case, correlation is not causation. a very real commonality in spree shooting events (as i like to call them) is underreporting reportable incidents leading up to the spree shooting, and/or inaction by interested parties in reporting or intervening (parents, counselors, local police, teachers, co-workers, et c) who notice disturbing behavior and do not sufficiently call attention to it. in some terrible incidents, persons did report to authority worrying situations, encounters, speech, et c but this was not acted upon by those authorities.

doing "something" where the "something" is curtailing Constitutional rights is not the appropriate response to a fear of what might happen. if that were an appropriate response, that puts up for grab all other "rights" when the right case of fear comes along.

this consistent pattern of underreporting or inaction is pervasive at a cultural level among some people and intervening when disturbing behavior is noticed with social services and rehabilitative services (or judicial/custodial if needed) is really what i think is a more likely line of pursuit alongside enforcing existing laws (vs creating new ones or curtailing individual Constitutionally protected rights) to tackle spree shooting. another avenue is working with industry and state to promote secure, safe gun storage that is affordable, accessible, and keeps firearms in the hands of the owner and not thieves. combined with an effort to enforce the requirement for local law enforcement to report to NICS incidents that would disqualify someone from a firearms purchase and i think we'd be a good way towards a viable, sustainable, agreeable solution for spree shootings.

there is an additional topic of mandatory reporting to NICS of incidents where that incident may fall under HIPAA, creating a situation where a reportable incident is not reported because it would compromise patient confidentiality.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-records-in-the-nics-indices-by-state.pdf

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-095.pdf

 

[Considered HARMful]

@The Bronze Golem
Kindly please go to some other thread to explain how an uneducated peasantry armed with intermediate caliber rifles can't stand up to modern army.

You know, like in Afganistan.

 

[Champion The Wonder Horse]

Are you by any chance, British? Only a Brit would go through this amount of mental gymnastics to coin himself a W.

Whoa whoa whoa. Speaking as a British gun owner, don't blame us. You yanks produce more than your fair share of gun-banning faggotry.

 

[The Bronze Golem]

@The Bronze Golem
Kindly please go to some other thread to explain how an uneducated peasantry armed with intermediate caliber rifles can't stand up to modern army.

You know, like in Afganistan.

Lol and it's even worse now that Brandon has basically given them a free supply of all the real stuff.

 

[Bassomatic]

Lol and it's even worse now that Brandon has basically given them a free supply of all the real stuff.

Insert the he keeps calling me a terrorist but the CIA won't give me stingers meme here.

While I don't want to move a nice gun chat into politics stuff, I'm a bit nervous Mrs basso works with a school district and I have 8 stamps now CCP etc. I hope I don't get dug up and hurt her career. Sad feeling I do worry now a days.

So back to gun stuff, thru a friend met a Japanese girl who is here for school and she's never like seen a gun irl let alone shot, so. Offered to take her out and I'm pressing a lot of 7.7 I bet she's going to flip a shit I have a Japanese rifle.

It's always cool to bring someone into the hobby and I really hope having a homeland rifle would make her happy (sadly mine has a destroyed mum)

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Insert the he keeps calling me a terrorist but the CIA won't give me stingers meme here.

While I don't want to move a nice gun chat into politics stuff, I'm a bit nervous Mrs basso works with a school district and I have 8 stamps now CCP etc. I hope I don't get dug up and hurt her career. Sad feeling I do worry now a days.

So back to gun stuff, thru a friend met a Japanese girl who is here for school and she's never like seen a gun irl let alone shot, so. Offered to take her out and I'm pressing a lot of 7.7 I bet she's going to flip a shit I have a Japanese rifle.

It's always cool to bring someone into the hobby and I really hope having a homeland rifle would make her happy (sadly mine has a destroyed mum)

Make sure you have a padded shooting jacket, or something along those lines for her. Full-powered wood-stocked rifles tend to be a bit painful for new shooters.

 

[Falcos_Commisar]

I agree, they are fun to shoot, they really are amazing pieces of technology, and a testament to human ingenuity and craftsmanship. Just because I'm iffy with their place in society, doesn't mean I think they're the spawn of Satan that are horrible, and you're horrible for liking them, and "omg we need to ban them right now and take them all away"

With that being said, "Because it's fun" is not a valid argument. Many things that can also be "Fun" don't always mean it's good or necessary for society. Nor does it mean it's the spawn of Satan either.

Because remember, I'm not a person who thinks "Omg ban them RIGHT NOW" I'm more of a "ehh, yeah it's nice but, do we really need that"

I'm leaning towards no.

But, a handgun or 12 gauge shotgun can perform this task just fine. It doesn't mean we should have absolutely zero regulation and let everything get by. There are better options. And Handguns are that option. They're also better for society overall.

I think another big issue with AR-15s is how people try to larp as soldiers and replicate these idiots you see wielding them on the news. The media is part of the problem at the root. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.

If you have a mice infestation in your home, and you can't kill all the mice. Does that mean you're going to throw your hands up and say "Fuck it, I can't get rid of all the pests, what's the point of even trying. Or are you going to at least say "Hmm, here are some things I can do"

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

I BUY AND OWN WHAT I WANT AND YOU CAN KINDLY STFU ABOUT IT

 

[TerminalTryHard]

Kudos to everyone who actually read through that faggot's walls of text.

 

[SuperConglomerateWhale]

It doesn't mean we should have absolutely zero regulation and let everything get by. There are better options. And Handguns are that option. They're also better for society overall.

The Second Amendment means what it says and Bruen reaffirmed that. Current "Assault Weapons Bans" and ones in the process of passing legislature are absolutely not going to survive constitutional review because there's no historical precedent of weapons regulations being imposed for the government to provide the safety of the general public (fun fact: the government is not responsible for public safety according to decisions in Deshaney V. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock V. Gonzales) so we are effectively left to our own devices to protect ourselves. Quite literally anyone around you can carry a gun with the full intention to kill innocent people, someone deranged will get away with it, how will you stop it? Allowing more people to legally arm themselves and codifying protections for lawful gun owners that use a weapon to defend themselves is a great first step in fixing the problem.

 

[SuperConglomerateWhale]

It's incredibly fucking telling that the current line of attack is "Well it doesn't say 'purchase' or 'own' anywhere, so the government has to own them." They know the rest is iron fucking clad, they have to resort to no-hope word games.

The anti-gun argument has collapsed completely because anti-gunners offer literally no solution to incels shooting chads in schools and other public places. The niggers want "more common sense regulation" when the federal government already has 50k laws/regulations currently in force.

When you ask them "What law has stopped any of the shootings anywhere in this country? " they can't respond because they know that their argument has been proven to be a failure and they just say no one needs guns.

They all believe this shit until they become victims.

IIRC the NFA is worded as a tax literally to avoid the constitution. It's (or was) technically not a ban, you just need a tax stamp (that itself was prohibitively expensive before inflation) that they only offer for some items. If the law was true in spirit to the constitution, anyone would be able to own anything, which was the case up until the 1930s. You could walk into a hardware store and buy a machine gun, or buy 12 pieces of field artillery to display in your garden.

I am extremely hopeful that for as long as Big Dick Thomas lives that the NFA will make it to SCOTUS and will get struck down. Fuck the gun and ammo taxes imposed by the feds and states and fuck permits and licenses. NFA should have a broader decision than Bruen.

Edit: incite a glownigger holocaust.

 

[TypicalJuly2022Acct]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

I BUY AND OWN WHAT I WANT AND YOU CAN KINDLY STFU ABOUT IT

The Second Amendment exists to affirm our rights as free men and as stated, for the defense against invaders and tyrants. There is nothing in it about hunting nor sport. If anything, by the letter of the Constitution, we have more of a right to select fire M16s and AKs(the contemporary equivalents to the Brown Bess and Charleville muskets). The only real reason to restrict them is in support of tyranny.

 

[The Foxtrot]

The anti-gun argument has collapsed completely because anti-gunners offer literally no solution to incels shooting chads in schools and other public places. The niggers want "more common sense regulation" when the federal government already has 50k laws/regulations currently in force.

Exactly this, they can never clarify exactly how disarming me, a law-abiding, sane gun-owner will somehow make society safer. Just because John, the law abiding citizen, disarmed doesn't mean that Tyrone hanging onto his (stolen) ghetto blaster will ALSO disarm alongside him, or that another mentally ill wannabe spree-killer won't find a way to carry out his plans anyway.

When you ask them "What law has stopped any of the shootings anywhere in this country? " they can't respond because they know that their argument has been proven to be a failure and they just say no one needs guns.

They all believe this shit until they become victims.

Their "arguments" are either A) profess/imply moral and intellectual superiority by claiming that owning guns is pointless/useless, or B) use shaming tactics to make gun-owners out to be Very Bad People. There's never an actual argument as to why curtailing firearms ownership is a good idea and how they'll accomplish it without a fuckton of outright bloodshed, political meddling, or indirect incentivization like increasing health insurance costs for gun owners. They just believe they will make you a criminal, and you'll either comply because you don't want to be a Very Bad Person, or you'll get murdered by the cops/military ; it's a very narrow-minded and childish idea.

I am extremely hopeful that for as long as Big Dick Thomas lives that the NFA will make it to SCOTUS and will get struck down. Fuck the gun and ammo taxes imposed by the feds and states and fuck permits and licenses. NFA should have a broader decision than Bruen.

With how he's been acting and talking, I firmly believe that the NFA and other unconstitutional and frankly tyrannical Federal "gun control" laws are gonna get struck down.
2020's 'summer of love' scared the rest of the American Public into realizing that being armed is a good idea in case BLM/ANTIFA types show up to their doors, and Uvalde finally killed what little weight the "thin blue line"/"let the cops protect you" groups had left. The anti-gun crowd has so little genuine political power it's honestly fucking hilarious to me that they're doubling down on the insane rhetoric, rather than taking a moment to self-reflect and wonder why gun ownership rates are skyrocketing.

The best they were ever going to get was the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, and what they likely don't know is that before that particular piece of legislation actually became an enforceable law, people were rushing to gun stores in droves to buy ARs and AKs before they got banned. People who previously didn't even know that they could buy them were buying them 2 or 3 at a time...because they were about to be taken off the shelves. And this isn't a one time thing, every time the anti-gun crowd has started really beating those drums, sales of guns, ammo, and accessories for them have skyrocketed.

Now, after repeated documented failures by all levels of law enforcement agencies to actually prevent crime, after they have actively stood by and watched people get beat up, murdered, or had their livelihoods/businesses/homes burned down, and after one fucking 18 year old kid shot up 3 ANTIFA goons in defense of his life and proved that yeah, we DO have the right to defend ourselves and it's okay to exercise it...do the anti-gunners honestly think that their words are being heard by anyone except their own side? Because I'm not convinced by their arguments and nobody who is legitimately pro-2A is either.

 

[Meat Target]

Exactly this, they can never clarify exactly how disarming me, a law-abiding, sane gun-owner will somehow make society safer. Just because John, the law abiding citizen, disarmed doesn't mean that Tyrone hanging onto his (stolen) ghetto blaster will ALSO disarm alongside him, or that another mentally ill wannabe spree-killer won't find a way to carry out his plans anyway.

Because it's not about public safety. It's because they know that it's harder for them to get rid of you when you can fight back.

The only reason anyone wants you disarmed is because they intend on doing something you would shoot them for. Even when done for legitimate purposes (such as cops seizing a felon's illegally-possessed guns, or the military conducting strategic bombings on an enemy arms factory), this is the case.

What other reason is there to make someone defenseless, than to place them at your mercy?

 

[Club Sandwich]

What other reason is there to make someone defenseless, than to place them at your mercy?

to be completely fair, and this is true of our recent @The Bronze Golem , is that they are willing to trade the responsibility of personal freedom for the promise of security.

everyone makes that sort of judgement call whether it's buying stocks, a car, a home, what you wear, the hobbies you do, the vacations you take, or the career you choose.

the key difference is that some people want to make that decision apply to everyone instead of just themselves and justify it by asking rhetorical questions of "why do you need" and "do you need", essentially using bargaining, rhetoric, appeal to morality or authority to get what they want: less freedom for (maybe) more security.

that's not a bad thing, that's just how it is. what makes it much more dubious and objectionable is the insistence that 1) the promise of security outweighs the possible benefits of some freedom, and 2) that their security (perhaps disguised as "security for all") depends on everyone giving up some freedom, not just themselves. forcing people into a "more secure" situation when they are unwilling and disagree is inherently anti-freedom.

unlike buying fast cars, enjoying deep sea diving, working on oil rigs, or living in a ghetto; those affect the individual. you can buy a different car or take public transport or walk. you can do model train building and work as an patent attorney; you can live in a quiet suburb of rural Montana. all those just affect the individual. however the individual choice to have "greater security" relies on convincing others to reduce their free choice. your individual choice to be unarmed or lesser armed simply reduces your own freedom - it doesn't affect other people unless you have force behind it (whether force of law, force of authority, the threat of violence by proxy by using the state to force the unwilling to comply, et c).

honestly, people who are anti-gun should be the change in the world they want to see. use alternate means to resolve conflicts and personally divest themselves of whatever arms they disagree with. if enough of them show by action and willingness to accept the consequences of their personal decision then that example and it's success will hopefully spread to others and convince people through example than through coercion. i would have a lot more respect for an anti-gun politician who lobbied for like-minded folk to divest themselves of arms, remove themselves from places where arms are especially common, and dismiss their reliance on armed security and show everyone how successful they would be - i'm absolutely certain that such a thing is possible if they were true believers in the cause of disarmament.

 

[SuperConglomerateWhale]

i'm absolutely certain that such a thing is possible if they were true believers in the cause of disarmament.

I used to think like this, but I (not trying to PL like a fag) quickly saw how my vision of a peaceful unarmed society is not possible through personal experience. We have many places in the US where guns are difficult to obtain legally, but everything codified is disregarded completely when Billy decides to figure out a way to rape and murder the neighbor who thinks they won't ever become a victim.

I like to believe that everyone around me are people of good standing and moral character who would never harm a soul, but humanity is instinctively evil in various ways, and you learn that quickly when entering the world.