Gun Control

Infringe

You forgot breathing control, trigger pull and the whole mental side of shooting.

Every citizen should have the weaponry needed to murder every member of their government.

>INB4 all government officials are escorted 24/7 by tanks, drones, and nukes
Almost all government officials have absolutely no protection once they leave their offices and no protection at their private homes beyond their on firearms.

Attached: 8287346234234234.jpg (560x488, 200K)

Guns cause cancer?

/thread

The term is meaningless. What are your goals?
If the goal is
>reduce firearms violence
then attempting to take guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer.
If the goal is
>reduce overall preventable deaths
then getting doctors to wash their hands and people to eat less bacon is a better answer.
If the goal is
>remove guns from law abiding citizens while letting criminals and illegal aliens run roughshod over the population
then you are going to have to face down 100 million armed citizens first, Commie.

The reason we can't have a debate about gun control is because Discord-trannies such as yourself can't understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It's not called the Bill of Wants or the Bill of Needs, you know.

Repeat after me; SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED!

Attached: 1523605469444.jpg (1200x882, 281K)

But there is already gun control. Violent criminals are not allowed to have guns.
Do you disagree with that law?

we cant debate about gun control because weak body lib bitches dont have enough T in their body to understand why we need guns.

If you watch this video every morning, it will raise your T level and eventually you will understand why we need the 2nd amendment.

youtube.com/watch?v=yTDOoXd6EXs

Can't argue that

We can't have a debate on gun control because brain dead Liberals(who don't even understand how firearms work) take everything too far eventually which causes the Right to go from moderate gun control to none at all because they know one law will turn into a hundred(also equally dumb, but fuck liberals so I support this one).

The problem is political parties act like rival sports teams, they hate each others guts and refuse to meet on common ground or try to understand each other. When one says 'up' the other instinctively says 'down'.

Attached: 1351535150618.jpg (264x238, 15K)

I think you misunderstand me my friend

No

Why would anyone want policies that does nothing, costs money and infringes upon the rights of the citizens? This is a losing issue if republicans wake up to the fact that (as always) the science is actually on our side

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004723521400107X

How about ensuring that the other people who have guns are trained so they aren't shooting them like nigs?

That's my concern as well

Not at all. You want to have a discussion about the definition of gun control, but that's just a way for you to push for talks about gun control to begin with.
There is no good reason to have gun control, because guns can do no harm. Ever.

If you want to reduce violence done with firearms, you need to look at the reasons why people commit crime in the first place. Demographics, the Bell Curve, poverty, mental health issues, gang rivalry etc..
The question is complex, but at no point can you blame an inanimate object for the loss of life. Because of that your attempt to have a definition prior to a debate is null and void.

im all for more training. I tell antigunners/leftists to go to classes all the time. they wont though.

That's a great idea. I can assure you that people are working on that. At the same time, I understand your concern that it may not be happening at all times

So you think violent criminals should be able to legally own guns? People that have already shown that they are not capable of controlling their behavior?

Me to. If you don't practice you might as well not even own a gun.

Firearms are the great equalizer. A criminal is only that at the point when he or she has committed a crime. Until then they are citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
If they get arrested for a crime, they will serve a sentence, after which they will no longer be criminals in the eyes of the law, but men and women who have served their time in jail as punishment for whatever laws they broke. As such they should retain their rights in the same way that they still have the right to Free Speech.

yeah. nothing gets me more riled up guys who own guns and are all for it but don't practice with it. You think your shit XD pistol or shotgun is going to perform if you only shoot it once a year?

What about people on probation?

There's no debate to be had. It's a right not a privilege. If you want to poke the bear though, be my guest. Majority of gun owners are white and hate lefties. I'm sure showing up to their houses to try and take their guns won't result in liberals being rounded up and gassed.

Good boy who dindu nuffin. 30% of violent felons end up back in jail for similar crimes within a year or so. The only reason we release 'rehabilitated' persons is so some state shrink can get his dick hard for how many lost souls he 'helped'. Commit a gun crime? No guns. Get caught with weed? Have a gun, just don't do anything stupid. The fact that they've stopped doing appeals on this is dumb and they should bring it back.

ex cons who serve their sentences should be allowed firearms again. however, if they commit crimes again with a firearm, they should be executed for mishandling the trust put on them by the people, the government, and god

The reason we can't have a debate about gun control is because the solution to gun crime is removing niggers and spics

Attached: 1548792379329.jpg (648x595, 77K)

the word than mean anything is " control " once you understand, the government and the commies want "control" then you understand why the 2nd is there .. just look up mexicos gun laws , then look at the deaths in juarez . yearly .. that can be America tooo . without the 2nd admendment,. know if you want to use children as you shield in this arguement. last i checked ,, it's the school reponsability to keep them safe. the get funding from the 'govenment" so hold you govenment resposible to keep our kids safe at the school.

By definition probation serves as a temporary release until they have proven that they are fit to be let back into society. It matters little if they are incarcerated or on probation - both are parts of the punishment for doing a crime. Until they have served their time, their rights are temporarily taken away from them as the Constitution dictates.

Attached: 1523673069913.jpg (4096x933, 654K)

Right on. My new vp9, shoots like a dream

Attached: 15557293998148597932926739788778.jpg (2560x1440, 1.35M)

>changing the law is against the law

>God given Constitutionally protected right
>Open for control
pick one

The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. It merely recognizes already existing rights granted by Nature's God.

No document written by man can take away those rights.

Attached: fortytopkeks.png (358x358, 278K)

I can agree with that. How many chances do they get though?

The right to bear arms is a natural right and anyone who seeks to curtail rights should be killed. This indeed includes violent criminals. We don't withhold their right to free speech or freedom to practice their religion when they're released so there is no basis to withhold their right to bear arms. They shouldn't be among the population if they can't be trusted not to murder people. If you disagree, you're only opening the door to further curtailing of rights and you are no different than a liberal who wants SWAT teams kicking down doors to confiscate guns. This is a binary choice. There is no middle ground because time and time again leftists prove they will take a mile when we give even an inch.

>it's the school reponsability to keep them safe. the get funding from the 'govenment" so hold you govenment resposible to keep our kids safe at the school.

it blows my mind how most people dont get this. every time a shooting or something happens its always on the shooter and the 2nd amendment community to blame, but why are the schools not being protected?
>inb4 its all orchestrated

That depends on the crime. I am personally advocating for the death penalty for rape or molestation of children, for instance. Thankfully it's not up to me to pass sentence.
A jury of your peers will vote if you're guilty or not, and a judge will pass out a fitting sentence. If it's not your first offense, then your punishment will be cumulatively harsher to match the crime (or in this case - being a repeat offender).

At some point you will no longer be allowed in public and will have to serve out the rest of your life behind bars, thus voiding any rights.

No. I think the reason we don't agree is a fundamental different interpretation of what a right is and specifically the interpretation of the second amendment.
They are not privileges granted by the government. They are God given rights that the people demand.

How can any law or government agency have an authority above God? There is no defense for infringement.

this

That would be nice. But in reality, we both know what happens.

What about existing gun control?

>they hate each others guts and refuse to meet on common ground
There is no "common ground" on the issue. If you don't value the 2nd Amendment, then you don't value the core tenets that the country was founded upon. In the same way if you didn't value the 1st Amendment or the 5th.

The opponents of the 2nd Amendment never bring any good-faith or honest arguments forward for their position either. It's all lies, misrepresentations, or guilt by association. They don't want to fix any of the issues, and the people pushing them to hold that position have blatant ulterior motives for furthering it.

Privately owned prison systems are part of the problem. Once you're motivated by profit, it all goes to shit when you're trying to serve the public.

that is not law. it is a reminder to you that is above the authority of all law.

>Invading France is against the law

BE

Not sure government owned are much better unfortunately

based

Attached: Bob-2.jpg (500x366, 91K)

Well, then you have something to focus on other than gun control.

I agree that is part of the problem

What says I am not focusing on that as well?

Based and gunpilled.

cia ones do

The implication here is that you want to discuss gun control, when there are other more pressing underlying issues that are causing loss of life on a massive scale.

>Be honest, the reason we can't have a reasonable debate about gun control is because we don't agree on a definition of gun control.
Even as a leaf, I understand the meaning of shall not be infringed.

Gun control: the notion that laws against guns will make people stop committing murder.

this is what we need for common sense laws...

Attached: abortion_control.png (1386x1560, 93K)

I start my kids off with bb guns and bow and arrow

Attached: tiny_ar.png (842x974, 747K)

The reason we can't have a reasonable debate about gun control is that gun grabbers are irrational retards who belong in mental institutions.

Have you considered buying a gun and using it to shoot yourself in the head so as to add to the statistics of gun violence to help prove your point that guns are bad and the population should be disarmed?

How about fuck off gun grabbers

bitchute.com/video/wV8dlev5IH6F/

>You forgot breathing control, trigger pull and the whole mental side of shooting.
I see gun control simply as an ability to hit your target 100% of the time. All things like breathing, handling and the 4 rules fall under this umbrella of logic.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Kill yourself with a gun for this bait thread

This

There is nothing to debate. What could you possibly say that would make me want to diminish my own rights? What a stupid thing to think.

Guess what? They already do. And if you locked them up and then let them out but they can't be trusted with guns, why did you let them out?

It's an amendment faguette, not how that works.

Privately owned prisons are a disaster. Louis Farrakhan has spoken about how the privately owned prisons end up with the prison system bribing judges. They end up demanding long sentences to raise their profits.

AFRICANGLOBE – Disgraced Pennsylvania judge Mark Ciavarella Jr has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for conspiring with private prisons to sentence juvenile offenders to maximum sentences for bribes and kickbacks which totaled millions of dollars. He was also ordered to pay $1.2 million in restitution.

Attached: 1555376197778s.jpg (217x250, 9K)

The reason we cannot have a reasonable debate about gun control is because supports of gun control have no foundation with which to make a deal.
"Give me $1000"
"No, I don't have any reason to give you $1000."
"OK, let's compromise, give me $500"
"I'll give you $100 to get out of my face"
and so the 1934 NFA was born

SHALL etc...

Attached: 1550266207825.jpg (750x520, 27K)

Thanks incompetent law enforcement and bonny and clide. Without their team effort our automatic weapons would not have been unlawfully stolen from us in a precedent that has been around for so long not even conservatives care about it and blindly go along with the ban.

Fucking based, can't wait until more policies we don't agree with are blindly accepted in the future. dissent is temporary. the damage is permanent. they have now learned to operate within the threshold not to awaken the slumbering american spirit that will soon be lost for good.

youtube.com/watch?v=LbGjKdX6z4s
Hour long, but basically.
>Inmates are basically forced into adapting to the system.
>Have to work 8 hours a day.
>Usually can't speak to other inmates except to the 8 minutes of leisure they're allowed (except for sports days I think).
>They prefer that over the alternative which ranges from staring at a fucking wall for six months (not even kidding) at it's softest, to other sorts of punishment at it's harshest.
Granted, I don't think it could be implemented 1:1 in the U.S. given nignogs and stuff, but I guess it isn't entirely impossible, and would still very likely be an improvement.
This is sort of a specialized prison that takes in foreigner inmates who get thrown into individual cells as opposed to the nip inmates who share rooms.

Yes.

Lets see
>UK has right to keep and bear arms
>UK slowly eradicates this right
>1 school shooting ever
>ban guns (unless you jump through hoops to get one)
>"hey look no school shootings anymore"
>ignore the fact there was only 1 case of a FreeMason shooting up a school
>ignore fact mass shootings in the 100 years leading up to Dunblaine were 3 cases
>one of which was police shooting unarmed protestors
>3 mass shootings since Dunblaine
>literally a child shot in the last 24 hours here
>police armed now because muh anti-terrorism
>Democratic vote of 17.4 million people being ignored
>We dictatorship now

Attached: gunrightswork.jpg (1029x4529, 1.46M)

>There is no defense for infringement.
God doesn't exist and therefore natural ****rights**** philosophy is not absolute especially in an officially secular state.

If you can't trust them with a gun, why even let them out of prison?

Based. Atheists against not only God but also all true Americans.
Learn American history retard. Your personal beliefs are irrelivant, the rights come from a supreme being above the authority of man.

Do you understand the concept of a hierarchy or is your retard atheist brain equivalent to a deflated balloon?

>Law that tries people with due process before restricting rights
No, I think it's quite agreeable because it doesn't effect law abiding citizens.

Sterilization as a condition for receipt of govt. benefits

Mandatory death penalty for any premeditated or group violent crime (applies to minors)

Mandatory death penalty for offender and guardian after third offense after 'initial warnings' for violent/disruptive/anti-social transgressions by one deemed 'mentally incompetent'. 'guardian' has option following first offense to surrender ward to state for assessment (rehab/work or execution) no strings attached. Will be fined at second warning (and have last chance to surrender ward to state)

Labor camps for debtors

Accusations deemed perjury to be sentenced against the plaintiff at maximum penalty the defendant would have received

NAP/stand your ground self defense law. Any action deemed 'crossing the line' and infringement against an individual's person or property (no butthurt because of mean words doesn't count) may be subject to disproportionate prejudicial retaliation as long as a warning has been given. (E.g. you can have landmines in your yard as long as you have a sign, honk at the guy who cut you off all you want, but if someone takes a swing at you in a bar feel free to blow them away)

There. Gun crime solved, most violent crime solved. Society saved.

Keep your aim true.

Attached: 1539062122603.jpg (980x742, 106K)

The type of gun control I do like, a steady aim and firm grip

>Sterilization as a condition for receipt of govt. benefits
I would advocate for a one year grace period because even honest people can fall on hard times. On the 366th day though, shit will go down.

Right, and that's a feature (per them). 'Gun control' is a direction - toward their complete removal.

Imagine being such a cuck you defend being below a made up character as if they're real when there's no proof. It's like an adult who still believes in Santa and holds his wife's legs apart for him to ho ho ho into but he never comes.

Attached: 1555638695116.jpg (1564x2106, 1.06M)