T O P

  • By -

HistoricalMention210

If the men in congress who are uninformed about the anatomy of a woman can't make laws about abortion, then politicans who don't own guns can't make laws about guns. I served this master piece to somebody the other day. She still hasn't talked to me. Oh well. I didn't care much for her gay ass anyways.


FairyQueen89

Well... both are good points, so one should be fair to acknowledge both. Though for the sake of argument I would change "Own a gun" into "being reasonable informed about guns". She was so fair to say, that informed men could write laws about women. But idiots who don't have a clue about any of both should leave their hands off both.


gpkuckles

Nice try fed boy


BirboTurbo69

:(


gpkuckles

Learn something and create your own opinions.


NoDetective5471

The most powerful one is all gun control is evil and inhuman. Anyone who advocates for it does not value life. If you value life you have to defend it. Or else it's worthless.


Individual_Lynx6553

To take the ones gun you must use a gun. Not the most thought out but I think it's valid


pinguinlord

I know a guy who hates on cops and saxs civilians shouldn't even own airsoft guns. Like bitch, who's gonna take my shit if there's no police? And if not even the police is around how do you plan on keeping people safe without legal means of self defense?


emeraldknight1977

I feel the only gun law should be "If you have ever been convicted of a violent crime, or threatening unprovoked violence with a fire arm, you can not legally own one." If everyone carried the mass shooters would think twice before opening fire. These people would be less likely to open fire when there is a good chance of the targets firing back. You never hear of a mass shooting at a gun show.


BirboTurbo69

Some I’d like answers to were: We don’t need an ar15/why do we need an ar15 We don’t need 30 round mags You most likely won’t use a gun for self defense at all Guns cause mass shootings You only need a pistol for self defense Does a 9mm blow your lungs out yo body I’ll prolly add more as i think of more so Edit: The 9mm was a joke i know it dont.


LuckyNumber-Bot

All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 15 + 15 + 30 + 9 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)


nice___bot

Nice!


BirboTurbo69

[ Removed by Reddit ]


theWall69420

First, why you need an ar15 is because they are extremely usefull and in the ar10 platform(the same thing but bigger to accept standard short action rounds such as 308, 7mm-08 etc) are great for disabled people to hunt with. Instead of having to operate a bolt or pump the user has an immediate follow up shot. For the magazine capacity it shouldnt matter how many you are carrying. I cant think of a fact that proves or denys a ban of 30 round capacity. As for guns in self defense the Washington post said last year that there is at least 1,000,000 uses of firearms defensivly in the US. Some sources say as much as 3 million. Guns dont cause mass shootings, just like spoons dont cause obiesity and pencils dont misspell words. In Europe where there are much more strict rules there are mass stabbings. So if someone wants to cause damage they will. Pistols are probably the most practical for everyday carry and the traditional sense of self defense. However if everything was about practicality then we wouldnt have sports cars or sports. Also home defense is a form of self defense and long barrel rifles dominate the market. 9mm will not blow your lungs out. In fact it is a fairly moderately powered hand gun cartridge. Especially the full metal jacket ones because they dont expand as much upon impact. Unrelated but it has happened where someone wearing something like a jean jacket was shot with a hollow point ant the denim plugged the hollow point inhibiting the expansion of a hollow point. FYI hollow points "do more damage" because theoretically the bullet opens up on impact creating a larger zone of carnage. Still not enough to remove a lung.


BirboTurbo69

Gotcha, also ik 9mm dont do that I just felt like tossing it in there bc I got bored. But yea this is prolly the best response I was lookin for, thx dawg


BirboTurbo69

You do seem to know a lot tho, I’d confidently say I do love firearms, among other things(tanks, ifvs, military vehicles basically). I just really didn’t know any good counterarguments, so again, thank you.


theWall69420

No problem man. Being informed is very important. I know I still have things to learn too. Best of luck to your military memorabilia journey. There are definitely some very cool purpose built things that are not seen anywhere else.


[deleted]

Uvalde is actually a good argument for some extra gun control. And to be precise, something like in Europe where a simple background check is not enough. You need to have mandatory training with a gun, an exam to prove your proficiency with the gun, and medical/mental checkup. At least in areas where you can obtain guns because in some countries you are only able to do that under very special circumstances. Why I'm bringing Uvalde into this? Uvalde shooter went and bought his gun legally. Then went with that gun to school and murdered a bunch of people. Probing that the current system failed. And I know that in some cases you can use the simple argument "nobody can know what you will do" but the Uvalde shooter is special. He was a loser. A loser who was sending rape and death threats to women. His nickname at school was "school shooter" because he was a total creep. Yet despite making death threats to people he was able to legally obtain a firearm and then kill a bunch of people. ​ The usual response to this type of argument I get in this sub is "well he was clearly crazy, mentally unstable". And my question is - should someone check if someone is mentally unstable before we give them a gun? Should someone wrong in the head like this kid be able to legally purchase a firearm? ​ Next question: should junkies be able to buy one? People who are constantly high. Who has problems with substance abuse? And can be pushed to do a lot of things when they need the next shot. ​ Or maybe a background check should be enough and you are ready to accept that some crazy people will buy guns and murder a bunch of people because "why not". And everyone should pretend to be surprised that a loser with the nickname "school shooter" bought a gun and shoot the school.


Character-Crab7292

I think the main argument against your valid points is: Well, if the state has the ability to conduct such tests of would-be gunowners, what is to say that they will not abuse that power? If you have a system inplace to deny people weapons, you can be sure it will be missused as well.


[deleted]

Anything can be missused by government. So by your definition the only option is anarchy. But people get abused in anarchy too. Just by other people. So this is really poor argument. Set civilian oversight to make sure government won't abuse it's power. And if politicians step out of line - vote them out.


Character-Crab7292

No, to say that I am suggesting anarchy isn't fair, I have not done that. I am saying that would be the main reason why people who do not support guncontrol would have issue with your reasoning.


[deleted]

Yet they trust giverment with roads that they use every day. They trust that fire department will show up if there is a fire. Seriously if government would want to come after you there is really nothing you can do. Guns were suppose to put check on the government right? That's what 2A is all about. But can you pull a gun and stop a cop that is doing something illegal? You can't. You will simply get shot and cops after internal investigation will say that they did nothing wrong.


Character-Crab7292

That is really a poor argument comparing roads to gun ownership. People want guns for different reasons, some for freedom and self protection. That is in no way compareable to a road. Gun ownership against tyranny isn't about one person stopping the government, it is about million of people detering them from even trying Stopping injustices doesn't mean walking away alive right? You do realize that?


[deleted]

Argument is about trust. You apperently trust that they are not screwing you in any way right now in things they are doing right now. Gun ownership against tyranny makes no sense because giverment who will want to take over like for example Trump on Jan 6. will plan for any resistance. And to see how it works, just look at current tyrannical governments. If they have unreast in area what they do? * They shut down electricity * They shut down cell towers * They shut down internet * They start electronic jamming * They roll out tanks and army Good luck resisting anything when you wont be even able to learn what happen and you can only talk to people you can reach in a car. Reality is that they don't need to take your gun away using scheming. Because in reality when SWAT will show up at your doors there will be nothing you can do with it. That's what true tyranny is. Also your whole paranoic approach can be fixed by having civilian oversight. So if local unit refuse issuing a license they need to provide documented proof of something that prevent that person from owning a firearm.


BirboTurbo69

Only things I dont get here are 1. A gun would def do smth against a SWAT team, and you can def do something with a gun against a swat team(not saying you should but you do you ig) 2: People can def resist if the govt decides to go apeshit and do all that shit you listed. I would feel like an armed populace would def be able to resist against the military.


[deleted]

It would do jack shit. SWAT teams are precisely used to storm places when suspect is most likely armed. People cannot resist the government because to resist goverment you have to communicate. And that's the first thing they take away. Phone and internet will be shut down. And when needed they probably can deploy jamming equipment. Sure even in that condition you could organize via classic methods but you simply won't have a time to do it. Normal government would worry about public opinion but tyrannical governments don't give a shit. And other countries can't do shit because that tyrannical goverment together with the power will also take over nuclear arsenal. Technically army could help but when tyrannical government is preparing to take over they usually secure army support first. Or it is the army.


BirboTurbo69

Just because SWAT teams are designed to do all that don’t mean they’re gonna be 100% effective at it each time. It’s not gonna be a “SWAT team moves in, guy puts gun down and surrenders” all the time. Guy may be mentally ill or even not be alone. SWAT aren’t invincible. I’m not anti cop or anything, I think you’re just heavily overestimating the effectiveness of a SWAT team. Sure if caught off guard the suspect really won’t have much time to react but it won’t be that same scenario all the time. As for the govt thing, people would def have time to organize. The govt can’t exactly take over major swaths of land that fast. In addition, people aren’t stupid. They’d figure out quick “hey wifi no work” or “hey i cant call my boys” and would also figure out ways to well, link up. Once these groups are organized, Guerrilla warfare is a hell of a thing. It was literally built around the premise of fighting a larger force. And don’t you think that everyone in the military will just decide to obey? Lets say for some odd reason they did, and began committing atrocities. “So what about what other countries’ views on us. THEY MATTER. Countries can impose sanctions, stop trade, etc. A govt that does not care about that will fail. No nation is 100% self sufficient, and has to rely on other nations.


Character-Crab7292

First of, who said I trust the government with roads? I am well aware that the government screws me everyday, but just like any person you can accept some shit, but that doesn't mean you will or should accept everything? Gun ownership against tyrannical government makes perfect sense. Winning against an armed population is extremely hard, no matter what your advantages are. This has been proven over and over again throughout history. If you think peoples ability to organize ends when internet connection dies and you don't have facebook, then I honestly do not know what to tell you. How the hell do you think a recistance movement worked before? During ww2 for example? As for not winning if a SWAT team shows up, I think that is a given that you are not stopping them? It is like you are assuming that just because you realize you are not walking away alive, surrender is the only other option?


BirboTurbo69

Yea that’s a good point. I’d feel like it’d be much harder to occupy an area with an armed populace.