"aquila121" (aquila121)
11/12/2018 at 10:46 • Filed to: None
2
9|
"aquila121" (aquila121)
11/12/2018 at 10:46 • Filed to: None | 2
| 9 |
Ann oulter getting shut down on Twitter after the buffer image. Bullitt Mustang because relevance.
Party-vi
> aquila121
11/12/2018 at 12:47 |
|
got damn
K-Roll-PorscheTamer
> aquila121
11/12/2018 at 12:56 |
|
The medical savagery is real.
ZHP Sparky, the 5th
> aquila121
11/12/2018 at 13:21 |
|
According to all the various mouthpieces I’ve heard the only people qualified to have any opinion about gun rights are gun hoarders and staunch proponents of the least relaxed interpretation of the 2 nd amendment possible. Everybody else is disqualified.
Don’t want you or your loved ones to get killed – you’re
just an idiot who doesn’t know the technicalities of the various types of guns,
ammunition, magazines, whatever. So LOLZ who would listen to you, you have no
say in things!
You’ve survived a mass shooting? You’re biased and being illogical
due to the trauma you’ve been through. Disqualified!
You have a loved one who died due to gun violence? You’re
biased and overly emotional. Or you’re a crisis actor. Your kid never died!
You respect the constitution as it stands and would like to work towards middle ground solutions within its bounds – given that it is already established that the 2 nd amendment is not limitless. Slippery slope, stop trying to trick us! DON’T TREAD ON ME!
BigBlock440
> ZHP Sparky, the 5th
11/12/2018 at 13:37 |
|
If you want to talk banning things and “make things safer”, yes, you should know what you are talking about, especially if the proposed bans don’t do jack shit.
|
ZHP Sparky, the 5th
> BigBlock440
11/12/2018 at 13:49 |
|
Define “know what you’re talking about”? A person doesn’t need to know the technical difference between a magazine and a clip or the intricacies of how a gun works to have an opinion to not want to get shot down by one while going about their business. Bring together experts, legislators, whomever and figure out the actual details of proposed rules - but individuals absolutely have the right to an opinion on other peoples’ actions that directly affect their own safety, without having a nuanced and technically accurate solution to bring forth each and every time that meets the requirements of the local ammosexual club.
Stop expecting encyclopedic knowledge from the “other side” as a way to devalue their position, while entirely ignoring the ever-more rabid and unintelligible population of nut jobs your side associates with. The second amendment has limits and allows for regulation. Correct? If so, come to the table to actually make that happen, instead of making excuses to maintain the status quo. Or if you’re one of those “individuals have the rights to the same weaponry as the military” people, then come out and fight for that position to see how far you get.
As for “proposed bans don’t do jack shit”...reminds me of that classic Onion article headline.
|
BigBlock440
> ZHP Sparky, the 5th
11/12/2018 at 14:06 |
|
That’s exactly what I’m talking about with not knowing. The AWB from the Clinton administration didn’t actually do anything, and only banned cosmetic features. All of the hysteria about “assault weapons” and “high powered guns” doesn’t do a thing to make anything resembling a solution. Bans of a particular type won’t do it (and the calls to ban “assault rifles” after a shooting where the guy used a shotgun or handgun just further prove they’re not interested in solutions). As far as the onion article, you’re talking a complete ban and door-to-door searches and seizures, which I really don’t want to see the bloodshed that results from that. That leaves us with security, which has proven again and again to work , but that gets shut down quickly because “kids should feel safe, even if they’re not” further proving that that side isn’t actually interested in real, workable solutions and instead favors an outright ban.
wkiernan
> BigBlock440
11/12/2018 at 16:22 |
|
Which is why, when you look at all the other developed countries in the entire world, in spite of them having various degrees of gun control from “rigorously vet potential owners to cull the lunatic fringe” to “no way, not under any circumstances” nevertheless they all suffer just as high a level of gun violence as we Americans do.
Wait, they
don’t
have as high a level of gun violence as we do? What, you mean we’re
unique in all the developed world
for our endless series of mass gun slaughters?
No way! Next thing you’ll be telling me our medical industry sucks, you commie.
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> wkiernan
11/13/2018 at 11:59 |
|
Unfortunately for your argument we are not unique in the developed world when it comes to gun violence or mass shootings.
What, you mean we’re unique in all the developed world for our endless series of mass gun slaughters?
Mass shootings are not a uniquely American problem as the media and politicians would have you believe. Mass shootings that occur in Europe are rarely reported in the U.S., yet happen with roughly the same frequency. Here is a very incomplete look at mass shootings in Europe, showing only the 16 deadliest mass shootings between 1987 and 2016.
|
wkiernan
> You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
11/13/2018 at 13:21 |
|
Meanwhile, courtesy of the Wikipedia, here are the 29 mass shooting incidents in the U.S.A. where ten or more people were killed. It does include five incidents outside the range in your table (that is, before 1987) but it does not include incidents where only eight or nine (only!) people were killed.
But you’re right
, there are plenty of
psycho assholes in Europe, as a glance at 20th
century
European history will tell you.