Hand over your weapons by David Scharfenberg
https://archive.is/u8nL0
>In the AFTERMATH of the Texas church shooting last week, Democratic lawmakers did what they always do: They skewered their Republican colleagues for offering only “thoughts and prayers,” and demanded swift action on gun control.
>Trouble is, it’s not clear the “something” Democrats typically demand would make a real dent in the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Congress can ban assault weapons, but they account for just a tiny sliver of the country’s 33,000 annual firearm deaths. And tighter background checks will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.
>In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, leading Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.
>At a New Hampshire forum in the fall of 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of an Australian gun buyback program that collected more than 650,000 weapons — a buyback that, she neglected to mention, was compulsory.
>And just a few months earlier, then-President Barack Obama offered coded support for the same confiscatory approach. “When Australia had a mass killing — I think it was in Tasmania — about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking, the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did,” he said.
>Democrats have even let the word “confiscation” slip out, on occasion. After the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a radio interview that when it came to assault weapons “confiscation could be an option, mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): C56A65D4BCB1D294E69561A5130A5D1E-39952.jpg (39.0 KB, 800x599, Democrats_War_Guns.jpg)
File (): 19BB8741D956A3093AE6928DF1044D0F-78694.jpg (76.8 KB, 915x499, Gun control compromise.jpg)
File (): CED810433ECD99D77237FAAFA80CAA47-732241.png (715.1 KB, 750x3200, Gun control, ck style.png)
File (): 3E58E97B2E05899942F3ACB0F7EA6D89-28096.jpg (27.4 KB, 640x360, dSSf8cIzPOFA[1].jpg)
![dSSf8cIzPOFA[1].jpg](/images/src/3E58E97B2E05899942F3ACB0F7EA6D89-28096.jpg)
As an european, I still have a hard time understanding america's obsession with guns. I understand that everyone wants to own guns - I would want them too - but the point of gun control is to keep them away from people who shouldn't have them. Don't you think your country would be a worse place if every nigger walked around brandishing fully-automatic assault rifles? For that matter, wouldn't your country be better if the gangstas didn't have access to guns at all?
That's the point of gun control: keeping the guns away from people who shouldn't have them. With mandatory permits, any nigger caught with an illegal firearm would go to prison and his gun would get confiscated, before he even had the chance to shoot anyone with it. Keep repeating and you'll end up with more and more niggers behind bars and illegal guns out of the streets, mitigating both problems at the same time. No, it wouldn't remove all the unregistered guns or eradicate gun crime, but it would keep reducing it year after year until you'd get to the same level with the rest of the western world.
Even with all the peace trucks and peace pipes from our peaceful refugees, the risk of getting murdered in any European country is thousands if not tends of thousands times lower than it is in america. Imagine if instead of having to improvise with trucks and bombs, the mudslimes could just walk into a gunstore and get decked out with military grade weapons. It would be a literal warzone whenever any single one of them decided to get religious.
That's the point of gun control: keeping the guns away from people who shouldn't have them. With mandatory permits, any nigger caught with an illegal firearm would go to prison and his gun would get confiscated, before he even had the chance to shoot anyone with it. Keep repeating and you'll end up with more and more niggers behind bars and illegal guns out of the streets, mitigating both problems at the same time. No, it wouldn't remove all the unregistered guns or eradicate gun crime, but it would keep reducing it year after year until you'd get to the same level with the rest of the western world.
Even with all the peace trucks and peace pipes from our peaceful refugees, the risk of getting murdered in any European country is thousands if not tends of thousands times lower than it is in america. Imagine if instead of having to improvise with trucks and bombs, the mudslimes could just walk into a gunstore and get decked out with military grade weapons. It would be a literal warzone whenever any single one of them decided to get religious.
File (): BA1C9217B88E9AD3BD12497609394351-225098.png (219.8 KB, 872x886, Nip btfos anti-gun fag.png)
File (): 9B1ED0E5EAB29E7C85777BF04BEE0038-92653.png (90.5 KB, 900x506, rainbow_dash_holding_a_gun….png)
>>98327
Sorry, no. First off, if you start a gunfight you are essentially signing your death warrant, as if others are armed they will immediately fire on you to defend themselves. People do not own guns to kill others, they own guns to keep others from killing them.
Also, gun control does not work. Entire armories have been discovered in Europe from which terrorist cells can arm themselves, and there is no reason to suppose that all of them have been found, or that all smuggling can be stopped. In a terrorist attack, you are essentially defenseless whether the Mudslime is using a gun, a knife, or a vehicle.
Also, in America, you can't just "walk into a gun store and get decked out with military grade weapons." The storeowner is not an idiot and will be hesitant to sell to anyone who looks like he might commit a crime, and he may ask questions or notify the authorities.
According to your logic, we gun-totin' rednecks living in the South must be living in a "literal warzone" much worse compared to northern cities such as Chicago and Detroit. Yet the opposite is true, and it is these places, as well as major European cities, that must fund an enormous police force that is present on every corner.
Also keep in mind that in Europe gun control used to be much more limited or virtually nonexistent, yet it wasn't a "literal warzone." It's the people that are the problem, not the guns. And zebras don't really see the difference between killing someone with a machete or with a machine gun.
Sorry, no. First off, if you start a gunfight you are essentially signing your death warrant, as if others are armed they will immediately fire on you to defend themselves. People do not own guns to kill others, they own guns to keep others from killing them.
Also, gun control does not work. Entire armories have been discovered in Europe from which terrorist cells can arm themselves, and there is no reason to suppose that all of them have been found, or that all smuggling can be stopped. In a terrorist attack, you are essentially defenseless whether the Mudslime is using a gun, a knife, or a vehicle.
Also, in America, you can't just "walk into a gun store and get decked out with military grade weapons." The storeowner is not an idiot and will be hesitant to sell to anyone who looks like he might commit a crime, and he may ask questions or notify the authorities.
According to your logic, we gun-totin' rednecks living in the South must be living in a "literal warzone" much worse compared to northern cities such as Chicago and Detroit. Yet the opposite is true, and it is these places, as well as major European cities, that must fund an enormous police force that is present on every corner.
Also keep in mind that in Europe gun control used to be much more limited or virtually nonexistent, yet it wasn't a "literal warzone." It's the people that are the problem, not the guns. And zebras don't really see the difference between killing someone with a machete or with a machine gun.
>>98327
It never stops at keeping guns away from gangsters and Muslim terrorists. It always ends up taking guns from average people because we just can’t be trusted. Then the gangsters and Muslims get guns illegally and kill us anyway. So yes, we need guns, because a war zone is a better option than potential mass slaughter from those willing to break the law on those that obey the gun regulations.
It never stops at keeping guns away from gangsters and Muslim terrorists. It always ends up taking guns from average people because we just can’t be trusted. Then the gangsters and Muslims get guns illegally and kill us anyway. So yes, we need guns, because a war zone is a better option than potential mass slaughter from those willing to break the law on those that obey the gun regulations.
>>98212
>Australian gun laws
It solved nothing, we still have gun violence that law abiding civilians can no longer defend themselves from because we need a "good reason" to have guns.
>Australian gun laws
It solved nothing, we still have gun violence that law abiding civilians can no longer defend themselves from because we need a "good reason" to have guns.
File (): F0F009CB7D282454A791FC4DE9355EB0-82752.jpg (80.8 KB, 500x500, 4A2AAEB4-315E-4405-892F-F….jpeg)
11 replies | 7 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived