Gun Control

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Funnybone said:
I'm a chick and have been called cute before. I average between 120-140lbs.

I have been accosted by a lot of creeps. I have always felt safe knowing that theres a gun in my purse. I haven't needed to take it out then, but if some creep tries to fucking harm me, I have the advantage.

Anyone for gun control is exceptional especially men who are because we chicks cant fucking win a fight with a guy. The great equalizer and all.

So yeah, give all women guns plz.
Click to expand...
is it a deagle
 
Funnybone said:
I'm a chick and have been called cute before. I average between 120-140lbs.

I have been accosted by a lot of creeps. I have always felt safe knowing that theres a gun in my purse. I haven't needed to take it out then, but if some creep tries to fucking harm me, I have the advantage.

Anyone for gun control is exceptional especially men who are because we chicks cant fucking win a fight with a guy. The great equalizer and all.

So yeah, give all women guns plz.
Click to expand...
So you're saying if we spread the idea that gun control is sexist we can cause the left to implode?
Sounds like a good plan to me.
 
carltondanks said:
edit: god that's such a cool video
Click to expand...
Yes it is.

edit edit: honestly, i think a better argument for this is 3D printing
Click to expand...
3d printed plastic lowers are garbage. The plastic and reinforcing is all wrong. Good strong plastics are the glass-fiber reinforced nylons. Guess what you can't 3D print with? The technology doesn't allow for long glass fibers to be printed in the design. 3d printers are good for soft pliable thermo-plastics like poly-ethylene. Milk jug material. With no reinforcement. That's why the 3D printed lowers look so stupid and blocky. They aren't strong enough so they beef them up and it still isn't great. You would be better off building one out of a polycarbonate reinforced resin (fiberglass) in a mold. But building molds and using resin isn't the new sexy technology for computer dorks, you could have done that for decades, so it gets no love.

The reality is that the AR design calls for aluminum. 80% lowers, jigs, and a drill are the way to go. Fuck plastic.
 
ColtWalker1847 said:
It's the states rights argument but specifically about guns, militia, and how they relate to the national army and the federal government. If your state decides you don't need a gun, well you are SOL. If your state says "why the fuck not you are part of the unorganized militia buy all the guns you want", that's cool too.

The point is that the federal government doesn't get a say here. It's up to the states because they are the ones who regulate the militia.
Click to expand...
Nope, the bill of rights applies to state laws as of the 14th Amendment. States don't have the right to ban guns.
 
Jon-Kacho said:
Nope, the bill of rights applies to state laws as of the 14th Amendment. States don't have the right to ban guns.
Click to expand...
That's nice. But I was specifically speaking about the intent of the 2nd amendment as written. Federalist 29 is very clear on what it means. That there was another amendment passed later that made it apply to states as well doesn't change that.

The states still have the right to regulate. Which is why the CA, NY, NJ, IL, etc stuff flies legally.
 
Last edited:
Jon-Kacho said:
Nope, the bill of rights applies to state laws as of the 14th Amendment. States don't have the right to ban guns.
Click to expand...

They don't have the right to ban guns outright, but it's possible they can regulate them to some degree the federal government chooses not to do. We don't actually know the contours of that legal doctrine, though, because both Heller and McDonald, which (finally) incorporated the Second Amendment against the states.

This had previously been rejected in a case called United States v. Cruikshank, which among other terrible things, found that the Second Amendment had not been incorporated against the states. This involved something called the Colfax Massacre, where white Southern Democrats, among other things including murder, massacred a group of black people for trying to vote.

The plaintiff in McDonald? A 76 year old black man named Otis McDonald who wanted the right to defend himself in a dangerous city. One of the Supreme Court Justices who wrote one of the concurring opinions in the case (and joined the majority) explicitly killing Cruikshank? Clarence Thomas.
 
apparently alaska has this system where every school there has 2 police officers there at all times, and it has seen success

what do you guys think about this?
 
carltondanks said:
apparently alaska has this system where every school there has 2 police officers there at all times, and it has seen success

what do you guys think about this?
Click to expand...
Live in Alaska. My highschool had this, I think my middle school had this, and my college has a whole building for millitary and police studies with a squad of cop cars out front, and the worst they had was theft and non-gun violence (at least while I was attending). I'm fairly certain my elementary charter school didn't and a crazy person with a gun broke in and tried to break down my classroom door. I was out eating lunch with my family at the time, but there you go.
 
Gay Kenshiro said:
Live in Alaska. My highschool had this, I think my middle school had this, and my college has a whole building for millitary and police studies with a squad of cop cars out front, and the worst they had was theft and non-gun violence (at least while I was attending). I'm fairly certain my elementary charter school didn't and a crazy person with a gun broke in and tried to break down my classroom door. I was out eating lunch with my family at the time, but there you go.
Click to expand...
checkmate atheists
 
My take on this is if you wanna buy a gun, there has to be a mandatory background check along with a psychiatric eval before the purchase can go through. If you're clear, then you get the gun. However, if you commit and are charged with any act of violence, you're required to turn your gun in to the authorities. It wouldn't be the be-all end-all for gun violence, but it would help. And if you're sperging about how you need to "protect muh home", that's what pistols and rifles are for, they're better shots anyways.
 
Sexy Times Hitler said:
My take on this is if you wanna buy a gun, there has to be a mandatory background check along with a psychiatric eval before the purchase can go through. If you're clear, then you get the gun. However, if you commit and are charged with any act of violence, you're required to turn your gun in to the authorities. It wouldn't be the be-all end-all for gun violence, but it would help. And if you're sperging about how you need to "protect muh home", that's what pistols and rifles are for, they're better shots anyways.
Click to expand...
There's already a mandatory federal background check and violent felons already aren't allowed to own guns (that's what the background check is for). Adding psych evaluations to the requirements might be reasonable, though there's the potential for abuse (an anti-gun psychiatrist denying everyone for example), and it would be a significant added burden to purchasing a gun. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt that requiring abortion centers to abide by basic safety requirements was an unconstitutional burden on the right to an abortion. By analogy I could see psych evaluations as potentially an unconstitutional burden on the right to bear arms, though it would likely depend on whether Kennedy had his pudding cup that morning or not.
 
I love how tactless and sociopathic leftists are when they use mass shootings as tragedies of convenience to shill their gun control narrative. It's almost as if they're excited for the next one and pray to the God of Reddit Atheism that the shooter is a white male, for added affect. Absolutely no respect whatsoever, for the dead, for the situation, for anything. They literally only exist to shed their crocodile tears over these shootings, the origins of which I am becoming increasingly suspicious of. They don't give HALF A SHIT what the death toll was, who died, and how much suffering was attained. They only care that more than one person died and it was guns that made them dead, because those two things put together means that they get to run around Town Square, screeching "I told you so"s at the "uneducated rednecks". How gormless.

Nancy Pelosi went to the candlelight vigil at Parkland. You know what that rabid cunt did? She made it about her, called all sorts of attention to herself, and told everyone to vote Democrat so that it doesn't happen again. That is why I loathe you gungrabbers. You have no principles. I am a piece of shit and I am one million times better of a person than all of you motherfuckers combined. I can take that fact to the bank and exchange it for some cold-hard, self-assured smug.
 
Last edited:
Banning guns to the mentally ill is pretty ableist and stigmatizing against the mentally ill. Only untreated paranoid schizophrenia and most personality disorders make you more likely to be violent. The person with bipolar, OCD, anxiety, clinical depression etc. is only a danger to themselves.
 
carltondanks said:
apparently alaska has this system where every school there has 2 police officers there at all times, and it has seen success

what do you guys think about this?
Click to expand...
I don't know how effective that is going to be. The officers assigned that duty are going to be mostly dealing with theft, slap fights, and smokin' in the boys room. Boring stuff where deadly force is rarely, if ever, used. They would probably get their own office too where students are free to come and go to report problems. What's to stop a shooter from just walking in and shooting them first?

It's kinda like how banks stopped having armed guards on staff. It's more likely to get them killed than stop a robbery.

Response training and allowing CCW for staff guided by trained professionals after a thorough security assessment would be more helpful. In the early moments of an attack make shooters have to deal with dozens of people actively working against them in concert rather than just a couple.
 
The US has been used to having guns be freely available and easily accessible for so long that I don't think gun control would make a noticeable difference. People who have guns won't give them up, and people who want them enough will still be able to get them. Making a stink about it at this point just makes people mad and wastes time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom