It’s a difference of opinion. It’s just that one is grounded in the constitution and the other is a progressive dystopia of government control and the oppression of its citizens.
1 Like
The left:
Potus is a Russian agent letting immigrats die on the border and American police officers unfairly target minorities.
Also the left: You don’t need guns, the US government’s got your six.
Does not compute.
1 Like
So, the government is actually going to purchase guns for the personal use of some people at the expense of others?
This doesn’t compute with the above quoted statement.
Yeah, it’s fun. But if you’re trying to use your fun hobby to assume moral high ground you’re only a more entertaining version of Crossfitters and vegans.
“I’m blowing up this water bottle with my shotgun because I’m preparing myself for resistance against tyranny so shut the fuck up”
Extremely quickly. But Red Dawn is not a documentary. Trust me.
Yeah, they are. And that’s the problem, tools to kill people being grouped together culturally with jetskis and fishing rods - for leisure and having fun.
EDIT: I know it’s the Daily Show and the guy is obnoxious AF, but it shows a different gun culture.
Well, that’s all because they don’t have full control of all facets of government.
1: obtain unchecked power
2: …
3: utopia!
2 Likes
I’d love to hear your reasoning instead of name calling.
Yeah similar to how lots or parivate schools, etc work. If you can afford it you pay full price. Part of that full price goes towards funding “scholarships”.
That was me thinking about the retired wealthy 45-50 yr olds not receiving pensions or SS.
IDK, seems like a way to get it done if the will is there.
So we should have them, but not be proficient in using them?
But they are not only tools to kill people with. They can also be used for hunting, and 
recreational purposes. Just because it can be used to kill doesn’t mean that it has to be.
Get WHAT done? What, exactly, are we trying to do?
What time period will we give the solution to prove its effectiveness, before rejecting it as a failure? We’ve been doing federal gun control since 1934.
I don’t speak for the left, but I’d argue guns are not the way to fight back against the corrupt POTUS or overly violent PDs. Legislation, and voting are the ways.
True. They’re definitely not having fun. They’re so miserable in the presence of firearms that they have to drink to deal with it.
The gun reform you and I have been discussing this whole time?
Idk. I’d give it 20 years to see statistically meaningful change. What time length do you think you be a good test period?
I’d say we could have gun reform in way less time than that. What is the effect we seek?
Let’s say ensuring gun owners are law abiding, sane, and responsible, but limiting the financial repurcussions and privacy/property infringement issues as much as possible.
We still want good people to be able to buy guns without undue hardship (limited administrative BS is not hardship).
How is any of that different that the regulations we already have?
Why? Why should anyone be permitted to own a gun?
Uhhh…its effectiveness, obviously.
Uhhhhh…uhhhh…that’s clever
I don’t know where you’re from but we have background checks. If you have a criminal record you cannot buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. If you lie on the form it is a crime, not one that is often prosecuted. The NRA advocates that people who lie on form 4473 be prosecuted. So what more do you want?
You can currently buy a gun with criminal history, no psych eval, and no proof of any kind of responsibility, right?
I think that should be changed. Do you?
I’m unaware of a law making it illegal for anyone with a criminal history (any crime, not just violent) to buy a gun. I think if a person has committed a crime they shouldn’t be allowed to buy or legally own a gun.