Had an argument with my roommate about legalizing FAs again. how do I argue for it without sounding like a madman.
Had an argument with my roommate about legalizing FAs again
Other urls found in this thread:
You can't. Any argument for more individual freedoms sounds insane to most normies because of jewish propaganda.
he struck back with the "imagine vegas with an mg" etc, pisses me off
I'm all for the right to own one. But I'd never use it. 3 round would be cool though. Basically the blanket law that strips you of the right also strips you of other more useful shit.
tell him "what if all the black slaves had machine guns"
I'm sure his lefty brain would see logic in that
if you're a bit of a lad you could argue that Vegas already was kinda like what may happen with an mg because of the bump stock he used
if you're an ACTUAL mad lad you can tell him that controlled semi-auto fire could have arguably been worse in the situation and that the use of the bump stock only made hitting things harder at that range.
Most of Jow Forums seems pathologically incapable of arguing for less gun control without making it seem like a very good idea to have a lot more gun control, so odds are the best thing you can do is to just shut the fuck up about it.
this but redpill him on the ATF plant and the fact that paddock was a government agent
what if all the black slaves had machine guns
What is the crack epidemic?
So, being young and not particularly well versed on the subject I tried to find a list of NFA items. I found an essay on why assault rifles should be banned. It was horrible. I can dance around most arguments and I'll be the first to admit I'm not the best informed person in the world. Give us some examples other than las vegas. already covered that.
Ask him why we don't ban race cars after somebody runs people over. The truck attack in Nice a few years back killed more people than any mass shooting has.
Most of Jow Forums
Maybe. But the biggest problem with more gun control in my opinion is that you're only affecting law abiding citizens. Who it just so happens have a right to own a ton of things that have been taken from them over the last 5 or more decades, with nothing to show for it in terms of effecting crime rates.
More government prohibition that didn't work?
Ask him if there was blood in the streets prior to the hughes amendment. Point out the NFA exists because of alcohol prohibition which created a lucrative black market that made gangsters absurdly rich and powerful. All gun control in this country is thanks to niggers, pastaniggers and potatoniggers in one way or another. The Jews want the goyim disarmed but the aforementioned groups gave just cause and plenty of tragedies to point to for the dumbshit bills of the day to be passed.
Sometimes the government can't protect you. Maybe you would know this if you ever decided to see how the other half live? Maybe I would rather not feel afraid about the local gangs or radical militias starting shit in my city , county, or state? Maybe there is a major natural disaster that has crippled the entire area and lead to massive riots and looting, even a rebellion if the political climate is that bad.
Civilians ought to be able to arm themselves in times of emergency, as is constitutionally guaranteed to them, fully automatic weapons included. Give me one reason why someone with proper training in handling fully automatic weapons , a regular citizen not a felon, should not be permitted this kind of firepower? There are times when people are in crisis and you're denying a man the ability to save himself, his family, or others because of the chance that a single psychopath will kill people in abuse of our laws. One man violating the law and general social contract of our society does not justify our collective rights suffering as a result.
Not a felon
Breaking social contract , the Constitution
Expecting constitutional rights
You're not allowed to vote after you're a felon in a lot of states as well. Seems fair that if you violate the rights of others you cede your own for awhile to you, surely?
One man violating the law and general social contract of our society does not justify our collective rights suffering as a result.
I really hope that was your post, because that would just be pure pottery.
This argument line is retarded
what if a tranny saved himself with an AR15
They want you, white men, disarmed. If they cared about blacks killing each other they would try to implement policies regarding such things, they only care about the guns YOU have.
It’s why they don’t really touch concealed carry but make a huge shit fit about defense laws. It’s about killing you you fucking retard.
One man violating the law
People collectively violating the law
One man broke the social contract, so that one man cedes some of his rights if he was proven to have violated the rights of others. It doesn't apply to the rights of normal citizens on the national level , it's contained in one man.
How do you not understand this.
it's illegal to murder people
How this is not simply the end of the argument is pretty amazing.
You drive to work everyday surrounded by people driving assault vehicles.
You fall asleep in neighborhoods surrounded by people who could easily kill you if they had a mind to.
Regulations are not what holds society up. The moral character of a civilization is not constructed in the courts.
Pragmatically, full autos are difficult to shoot. Adam Lanza would have killed less children had he used a full auto because he would have torn through his ammo faster. Systematic 1 shot semi-auto fire is the worst possible thing in a mass shooting scenario.
The only thing full auto is good for is suppressing fire. And the only reason a civilian would need access to FA outside of the fun range is to fight back against a superior force. AKA exactly what the 2nd amendment exists for.
A school shooting happens
People want to ban guns.
But it's not me it was him don't take MY rights
That's your point right? This is mine.
Forgot to remove cc from my belt before going into a post office
It's comfy, and I don't go into the post office often. Easy enough to do.
Bend over to pick up a box, someone seen me printing
They call the police and report an armed gunman at the post office.
Now I'm a felon, bunched in with Tyrone and Jamal.
That's not right is it?
Speeding on the highway.
90mph in a 65mph zone
Now I'm a felon.
Shoot someone in self defense
State has no stand your ground law, it's your duty to retreat. Now I'm a felon.
If anything redefine felonies, but no, I'll not just assume felons are horrible untrustworthy people.
who gives a shit about the particulars of your felony? Take it up with your lawyer.
Maybe dont be dumb enough to take your cc into a federal building.
Maybe don't drive 30 mph over the limit
Maybe don't live in a state that doesn't support self defense.
If you can't follow basic dumbshit laws then no, you are subhuman and have no right to bear arms anymore.
The people who you and I both agree should not have rights are people who never get out of prison.
Wrongfully being accused of terrorism, something you can petition the governor about
the same thing as committing murder , or arson or rape and having it proven I'm court
It depends on the crime you false equivalency spouting cunt. Different crimes recieve different amounts of punishments, sometimes both your right to purchase firearms and vote are ceded from you due to you yourself renouncing the rights of others.
Get over it , fedora. Your rights are given to you as a duty, if you're not willing to fight a wrongful conviction then fuck off. You don't get to enjoy the benefits of our constitutional rights to abuse others without renouncing them in the process.
If it was that simple bullshit gun laws wouldn't exist.
socialcontractfags are cancer.
I never signed your social contract, cuck.
without sounding like a madman.
start off by saying something ridiculous like "We should be able to own nukes". It makes everything else sound sensible.
Just have him read the 2A and ask which part he doesn't comprehend.
inb4 well regulated
English history lesson
Heller, MacDonald, Warren... and a history lesson.
This. Go full 1776 part 2 on his effeminate ass.
The constitution is the social contract. It's the same social contract that gives you the second amendment. Neck yourself, fedora
Bring up the fact that FA's in US are almost never used in crime.
Maybe dont be dumb enough to take your cc into a federal building.
Maybe don't live in a state that doesn't support self defense.
Easy, keep the current regulations in place but reopen the registry. There have been maybe 2 violent crimes committed with legally-owned machine guns in the last 50 years.
Someone post the /Pol/ 888888888 post on the nfa
Nukes should be legal for citizens to own. It's not like anyone would be able to afford them anyway.
"imagine vegas with an mg"
That's exactly the point. Vegas didn't use mg's because they're too hard to get. In fact there has never been a crime committed with registered, lawfully owned mg's even when they were legal to make at home, so why are they banned?
I just turn the propaganda around. If you think there are violent right wing nuts, and you will probably never be able to disarm them, why would you, as a reasonable person, want to be disarmed against them, especially when we have dangerous people like Trump around advocating open civil war and holocaust of the beans?
In fact there has never been a crime committed with registered, lawfully owned mg's
Not true user
”On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant”
Mind you it was a cop but I still believe MGs should be available to everyone without any cuckstamps or registration.
Owo that's good.
The constitution is the social contract.
That's a fucking retarded idea... What causes someone to enter into the contract? An accident of birth? It would seem so, given the 14th amendment. But minors can't consent to enter into such a contract, so it can't be as an accident of birth... so what magical fairy dust makes it a contract?!
Likewise, how is the contract enforced? Is it enforced by a neutral third party, or is it enforced by one of the signing parties by force? If it's the latter arrangement (it is) then the contract is null because one of the participants is under duress.
TL;DR - The US Constitution *IS NOT* a social contract.
I dont really see a way you can argue it without also arguing to restrict guns in another fashion. At best I see you arguing the whole reason machineguns and other NFA items were restricted in the first place was through a large attempt to help curb bank robberies and mafia violence which has largely been a success in the near 100 years the NFA has been founded so it's only rational to repeal the laws and instead focus on weapons like handguns which now dominate gun violence much like MGs did in the past.
Or you can argue how gun control is and has always been largely a racist effort and use his liberal guilt against him
Fair enough. So machineguns should be banned for cops and criminals. Everyone else should get them.
hurr you don't get the second amendment if you don't enter into the socciaal contraaact
Is this the power of a modern American college education? I'm pretty sure the way the bill of rights works is covered in high school, it isn't a declaration of your rights, it's a restriction on the government's ability to take them away. There are supposed exceptions, such as the restriction of felons' rights to own firearms, but those don't matter in practice since they ARE breaches of the bill of rights, it's just that nobody wishes to slot politicians until they stop doing it since it serves some vaguely proper purpose.
If YoU dOn'T lIkE iT tHeN mOvE sOmEwHeRe ElSe!1!1
Trip on Phil
It is because you can break the contract at any time. It's called renouncing your citizenship, you're welcome to leave any time faggot
user that's not how it works, you have the right to bear arms no matter who you are or what country you come from. Renouncing your American citizenship just revokes the American government's duty to not infringe on your unalienable rights. Modern scholars might disagree with this, but their opinions are irrelevant.
Thinking you have to be born American to have citizenship or renounce it
As for the rest of it, you are one of those faggots that starts yelling that he is a "citizen of the world" and "you can't arrest me" when you get pulled over aren't you?
That's not how any of that works. Go through the legal process of renouncing your citizenship to this country and tell me how it goes. I promise it will get you out of the social contract :)
You have no idea how anything works, do you?
*Dabs on your lack of argument*
Small caliber machine pistols or submachine guns would likely be one of the best options for home and self defense, 22lr, provided reliability problems could be solved, has roughly the energy of a single pellet of buckshot, if you have a way to shoot those at a rate of 1200-1500 a-la the American 180 you'd be putting lead/energy downrange at a faster rate than a semi auto shotgun in a more controllable package with less of a chance of over penetrating, it would be like a garden hose but for burglars.
tell him he's a retard for using Vegas as an example when the Pulse shooting happened. Now that one would've really been enhanced by full auto
"If people can smoke weed recreationally why can't i recreationally shoot full auto to relieve stress?" Then call them oppressing ableist scum
Rights can’t be given. That’s why they’re rights.
Nor can they be taken, they exist, full stop.
"They're legal in Switzerland, and it has the lowest murder rate in the world!"
You're obviously a little white bitch. Only white dudes sperg out about guns when having a basic discussion. Get your shit together you fucking school shooter.
Because the government is always right
Invite a gang of bear rapists via craigslist to teach your roommate a lesson about anal sanctity and the importance of FA to protect it.
Explain to him that aimed shots are much more dangerous than FA and most FA rate of fires are far too high to avoid wasting obscene amounts of ammo.
Any mass shooter will just end up expending all his ammunition on one target if he tries to use it
he rather talk things out instead of instilling his own will upon the world through physical force
haha yeah you might as well just not argue hahah just bend over and let us.... I mean those crazy lefties take your rights haha
The problem is that for many older folks and a disturbing number of younger ones, they don't understand that laws only keep honest people honest, and the only thing that keeps your law enforcers from becoming a self-declared privileged class is only having access to what everyone else does.
They also believe that somehow there is some magic that makes weapons of war only work in warzones, and that those warzones will never come to them.
Fun fact; two citizen organizations in the US do own nuclear weapons.
the goal is to sound like a madman
you want (((them))) to fear you
You can't. Just accept you're a wild eyed weirdo in the eyes of society for all time.
You sound like a retard who can't be trusted with a car, let alone a firearm.
Point to more recent history like the seige of sarajevo and srebrenica or sierra leon or the fact that ISIS disarms communities. It's harder to be painted as a paranoid when your delusions were reality 20 years ago.
Or you can point to the Britis model where disarmament literally led to higher violent crime rates, even MORE restrictive weapon legislation (can't own steak knives) and point blank supression of free speech. It's the slippery slope fallacy playing out in real time. You can also point to the inverse relationship between violent crime and legal gun ownership rates.
I keep on hearing this claim repeated with zero evidence backing it up. Paddock had a fantastic position with targets that were literally packed shoulder-to-shoulder. Accuracy wasn't a problem so long as he could keep muzzle rise from throwing lead into the next zip code. In that situation, full auto fire worked to his benefit.
In other mass shootings, a machine gun would have absolutely been counterproductive. This is the one instance where you can reasonably argue the opposite was true.
This post is the post I say in real life.
how do I argue for it without sounding like a madman.
don't talk to people irl like you talk to them on Jow Forums.
you are a stupid
imean i am
help i am retared