Question for Jow Forums

NICS is literally a federal background check

It is not uniform and states are not all obligated/pressured to update. Nor is our military.

>biological defect
Elaborate

Attached: image.jpg (680x777, 116K)

We're going to have balkanization within the next 30 years. I hope to live within the borders of a more free state. Nobody in 1776 America passed a background check.

>homeless for a year
>PTSD
>bi-polar
>tried to choke a police officer to death
I mean her left is is just a smidge lower then her right I guess.

That system already exists. I think that the states that don't use it are making life for their FFLs harder, but that's a states rights issue, and the federal government should not have the power to force them to do it. I also don't support mandating the use of FFLs for private in state sales. In my experience, most FFLs I know don't even want to handle that shit.

yeah, but that also leaves an open place for red flag laws and gun grabbening like in WA

>waaahhhh my BF scares me
>he had depression 15 years ago
>*removes guns forcefully

Attached: 1508767438438.png (1126x845, 666K)

It's up to you and the rest of your family to take care of your sister. Stop forcing me to pay for a bunch of idiots to take care of her, welfare nigger.

>>homeless for a year
Homelessness is a biological defect now?
I know a lot of people hate the poor, but this unusual for them

>balkanization within 30
> hope to live in free state
or just get strapped and stand by to lock down your own fiefdom in maryland

Homeless because she blew up at work and cannot control her rage. Please my friend I do not like this particular topic. She is flawed. I love her but I know she needs to be handled delicately because normal stress that we all endures sends her spiraling and violent. Homeless people almost always have a mental illness that makes them not "fit in" with normal society. Being able to hold a job and pay bills and think about the future. Do you want the 41 year old homeless man with multiple assaults and mental illness who is starving to have a gun? I certainly the fuck do not. That kind of condition breeds desperation and lack of consequences. Both things I do not want in a gun owner.

For a moment consider how you define homelessness. A 20-something entrepreneur living in his office to try to get his business of the ground is technically homeless.

It's not really a valid signal, in the context of signalling gun rights.

>multiple assaults
Then he would not be able to buy a gun as it would appear on NICS
Your own strawman defeats itself

> A 20-something entrepreneur living in his office to try to get his business of the ground is technically homeless.
Yeah. I'm sure he is the one who hasn't showered this month and is invading your personal space demanding money.

I"m not saying he is, I'm just saying that apart from those other things, being homeless is not itself a meaningful indicator.

>includes any criminal history
So not just felonies?

Someone says "I'm one of you; we just need this reasonable commonsense gun control compromise to get the grabbers off our backs" but actually proposing to strip millions of americans of their second amendment rights?
Shocked. I'm absolutely shocked.

She moved states. California to South Carolina. Who the fuck knows if the asshat in Cali did he job right and she is registered as a non-voluntary with violent tendencies? There is no real incentive to play along and no real punishment for not reporting.

Violent crime that results in a felony. Shit we ALREADY TO THIS EXACT SECOND consider grounds for rejection of a gun buy.

>Tried to choke out a cop during an arrest
Will someone get this bootlicking cuck's based sister a gun!

But that's not what you said, grabber.

So you would suggest the government conduct smell and personal space checks before they let anyone have a gun?
It's really cute that you're thinking about "gun crime" like you can fix everything magically, but the real world is a balance between practicality, personal liberty, and government power.

The truth is that real Americans value liberty above all else and statist cucks such as yourself operate on knee-jerk feefee logic and want big daddy government to protect them from everything bad in the world.

>Who the fuck knows if the asshat in Cali did he job right and she is registered as a non-voluntary with violent tendencies? There is no real incentive to play along and no real punishment for not reporting.
You are speculation. we would what ifs all day. But to indulge, you are acknowledging the possibility of the Failure of Authority. Why don't you acknowledge this in your OP.?

I'm assuming you have at least a passing familiarity with gun control in the USA, so why do you think it would stop with the passage of some nebulous background check scheme in place?

Just ban niggers and spics from owning guns and you eliminate 90% of gun crime.

First step is universal background checks, next step is using that list of gun owners to confiscate whatever the liberals want to consider an "assault weapon." Its impossible to trust these people with our best interests and rights especially after they have flat out said on countless occasions that they want to do away with the second amendment.

>no gun laws at all 2nd A 4 lyfe
What kind of retard paradise of paint fumes planet do you live on? We are bleeding gun rights left and right and the one suggestion to simply enforce the laws that are ALREADY IN PLACE. No new laws just actually doing what was passed is going to hurt gun owners? There is a culture war being waged on guns and instead of standing up and saying "yes we want to enforce the laws that are currently in place to prevent these tragedies" you want to so "lol fuck laws guns for everyone if I shoot you you deserve it".

Fucking retards the lot of you.

>watch more and more 1000 cuts chip away at our gun rights?
LISTEN
WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING
IS
THE 1000 CUTS

gun control is never ending. Look at the EU, so many gun grabbers look to the continent as the prime example for gun control. But guess what? They're still trying to enact stronger restrictions to this day.
What is wrong with you?
Seriously, why would you trust them to suddenly stop?

What the fuck are you talking about

No. If you want to stop school shootings you either have to get rid of the school system(turns them fat and crazy), social media(keeps kids from being able to get away from the problems they have at school), or both.

Because the alternative is an aging eroding patchwork mess that doesn't work and only gives grabbers delicious highly flammable kindling to burn their anti-gun arguments.

How can we stand by and defend a gun background system that does not work? It is tantamount to saying there should be no limits at all and criminals and violent tugs should be able to buy anything they want. Great if you are a pure through and through 2A cultist but the truth is I don't feel mental drop outs and felons with violent history should be able to buy legally. Most every other person would who isn't a single topic gun voter believes the same. If you want to die on your cross go ahead but I am thinking long term and how we preserve our gun rights in the face of utter propaganda and controlled media.

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED
NOW GET THE FUCK OUT

You know it is getting kind of annoying how fucking stupid Jow Forums is when it comes to gun rights. You're telling you you're ok with an insane fuckernut t with 7 murders and 4 violent rapes to be able to buy a gun because MUH ROTES! I mean he was born here . He is part of the militia!

Theres another alternative user...

Spell it out.

This, best part is it's already happened
>1934
We'll make a registry of machine guns and other unusual firearms to raise money, this is not a gun control measure
>1968
Heh, now you have to have a license to sell them, and if you sell without a license you can go to jail
>1986
No new machineguns can be registered, sorry fellas :^)

>patchwork mess that doesn't work
Failure of the state and not of the people

>only gives grabbers delicious highly flammable kindling to burn their anti-gun arguments.
The grabbers' arguments are rooted in emotions and fallacies. They don't look at data because it is never in their favor

>should be no limits at all and criminals and violent tugs should be able to buy anything they want
No one is arguing this

>I don't feel mental drop outs and felons with violent history should be able to buy legally. Most every other person would who isn't a single topic gun voter believes the same.
Congratulations, you and other people support a system that is already in place

If a man cannot be trusted then why are they not dead, or in prison?

I believe it's known as being able to vote under rule 308, though I personally like rule 300 better.

Silly peon,
Obviously, only the elite of society are worthy of rights.

T. OP, a faggot

This.

S H A L L

Just hire your own private securityforce for protection, user. I hope you're not one of those middle class or those poor "people"

>You're telling you you're ok with an insane fuckernut t with 7 murders and 4 violent rapes to be able to buy a gun because MUH ROTES!
No he should be killed but retards like you support a system that makes both killing him and >16 inch barrels on a rifle illegal.

against all gun laws. ever.

NOT

in a perfect world you don't need background checks

BE

We dont need background checks in this one.

>federal

Attached: prepare_the_McNukes.jpg (225x225, 9K)

INFRINGED

Do you realize that you will never live in a perfect world? Then why continue to expect the government to continue trying to perfect it for you? Atrocities are going to happen no matter where you live. You are not any more close to your personal utopia than the cavemen were.

>OP writes a literal wall of text
>gets BTFO and doesn't return

GG no re

Ausfag here, isn't this what FFL/NICS already is?
Sure, it doesn't cover private sales, but all sales from a shop already require NICS federally, right?

If it's not enforced even half assed now why do you think this new system will be top to bottom front to back? Don't you see people shirk even the most important responsibilities with the "it won't happen to me mindset"? Have you never worked in local government? You don't think psych doctors make mistakes? The one time out of a million it isn't enforced properly might be that magical time the loon takes his AK to the local mall. And what do you think the leftists will say then? "LOOK LOOK SEE SEE IT STILL DOESN'T WORK". And God help you something happens where someone who passed the checks already just up and decides "Fuck it", this has literally happened already. Gun laws for "gun violence" are not a solution to the problem. The mentally ill and how they're treated is the problem, stop ostracizing them and make it universally OK to be a little off and have a psychiatrist. Fuck it ought to be normal to be a little off considering the prevalence of mental illness today. We need a POSITIVE cultural change, we need to be more accepting of those who need help.
You come thinking you'll solve this problem with bandaids when we've got internal bleeding. You're reaching for the lefty bogeyman thinking they'll throw us a bone, it doesn't work with them.

Even in the field of mental health they make a distinction between different types of illnesses or things affecting you. To simplify it, there should be a category for schizo’s and people who felt depressed and wanted to solve their issues. The latter shouldn’t have an issue, certified schizo’s or other that are just insane (their brainbox being way of the norm in a very dangerous way) should not have access to guns.

I’d wish someone reasonable would just bring this up to the gun grabbers and ask them if they would guarantee them that they’d make a hard distinction and not try to bend the rules further, too much slices of the cake have already been given away in the name of “gun safety”, it’s subversion of the constitution in the most perverse way possible.

>I’d wish someone reasonable would just bring this up to the gun grabbers and ask them if they would guarantee
That's not how it works. You can't have a good-faith negotation of the sort you discuss with any emotionally-driven movement.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the current leaders of the movement you sit down with are actually negotiating in good faith, and will abide by their promise not to push for more, more, more. Does that mean we reach a compromise, both sides walk away, and we hear no more of gun legislation for decades? Of course not; those leaders will simply be replaced by new leaders that will push for more. Give an emotionally-driven mob the choice between "we got what we want, let's all go home" and "we won a small victory today, let's press onward to the next one!", who do you think they'll follow?

>Tried to choke out a cop during an arrest

got her #?

Leave, now. Leave while you still have hope.

Attached: FO01_NPC_Master_B.png (803x414, 491K)

I could imagine an action movie featuring user's somewhat mentally unstable sister, homeless, living in her car, going around with a shotgun fucking people up.
"Imotou with a shotgun"

The problem is that once we start clarifying non-criminals as banned people, it's easier to keep pushing the envelope
First, let's do the easy ones, schizophrenia, severe autism, psychopaths that have said they have no qualms with killing.
Then, someone's gonna say "Well, 70% of gun deaths are suicide, so let's add "Clinically depressed" to the list.
But some people still kill themselves
"Anyone who is currently on an SSRI/SSNRI even if it's just precautionary and they show no signs of depression and are living perfectly happy lives, and anyone who was depressed as a teenager"
Still issues
"Anyone who showed a lack of empathy at school age to psychologists, even if they where just LARPing and got better"
Fuck it, 70% of rapists and violent criminals are children of single mothers, on the list they go!
This is a different form of 1000 cuts, not designed to ban weapons, they could even lessen restrictions on weapon types here, but instead to cut down the people able to buy them to near 0.
>schizo’s (Ban) vs people who felt depressed and wanted to solve their issues (Allowed guns)
We already have this hard limit, it's simple.
Have you been convicted of an assault before, a crime, BAN
That's the limit. The hard limit is what you HAVE DONE, not what you could do
>B-but if someone hasn't assaulted someone without a gun, then you can't stop them from making their first kill!
The states in the US with the loosest gun restrictions have the lowest murder per capita rate in the developed world. One in one hundred thousand a year killed is the cost of insuring that you never end up in a dictatorship like the USSR/Mao's china, which each killed 100 Million in the last 100 years, over one in ten people being killed.
TEN, ONE ZERO, PER MILLION, VS ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PER MILLION
THAT IS ACCEPTABLE. If there was a button that had a 1/100,000 chance of killing you, but gave you total political freedom if you pressed it every year, would you?

>Is Jow Forums for or against a federal

Against the federal government existing.

The MADD principle.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving formed to push for some drunk-driving laws, so as to make it more serious in the eyes of the law than it was.
They did so.
Since then, they've been pushing for more and more incremental changes to strengthen those laws, far past the point of diminishing returns, in order to justify their own existence.

Any entity or organization that's taking in money, especially lots of money from rich idiots, will perpetuate that process.

>violate the fuckin NAP go ahead ill fuckin wreak shit

Attached: 1525846945204.png (320x240, 12K)