States introducing red flag bills

>states introducing red flag bills
>red flag bill being pushed nationally
>new bill pushing all semi autos with detachable mags to add to ‘86 ban
>nobody cares
Email your senators and urge against this. Prepare for confiscation

Attached: 5AB4442D-BC60-44A0-B2B1-F071BF8825A1.jpg (704x1024, 101K)

(((Deutch)))
DEUTCH, THEODORE E.
Born 7 May 1966
Residing at 12373 Cascades Pointe Dr, Boca Raton, Florida 33428

Based, saved it user

Why do you even need those anyway?

Because jews want niggers to live in my neighborhood which will cause violent crime to rise. 13/50.

>email the secretaries, that'll change this!
This cuck cycle is too entertaining. Inb4 dues ex SCOTUS posters.

>Need
Non-american with no freedoms spotted

Ted Douche. Majority white district. WTF Florida?

Kill commies.

>Need
>Need
>Need
I know this is bait, but I've been working on a response to that type of rhetoric, and I'd like to try it out here.

“No one needs [insert thing here]”
Well that’s a very confident claim to make. And not only is it incorrect, even if it were correct, the point would be worthless. Firstly, you don’t get to tell someone else what they do or do not need. I often hear this in terms of the AR-15, so I will be focusing on that, but the logic could be applied equally to, for instance, an actual assault rifle. Believe it or not, these weapons do have their place in situations where other devices may be inadequate, after all in 2016 for instance, rifles were used in almost twice as many defensive gun cases as there were rifle murders. The logic of the claim is faulty in other ways as well. For instance, there are many things in our society that are catalysts for the deaths of many and have little tangible value, and one could just as easily say that no one needs those things either. Swimming pools are used almost exclusively for recreation and are home to a wide margin more child deaths due to drowning. I mean, think of the children, does anyone need a swimming pool? Alcohol caused over 33,000 deaths in 2015, does anyone need alcohol? How about a car that can go 150mph+? Does anyone really need a high end, racing grade sports car? Why on earth should a civilian have access to high-speed vehicles of any sort? What reason is there for them, aside from "being able to break the speed limit"? As we know, poor driving and drag racing are responsible for many fatalities, even children. So obviously something must be done and people shouldn’t be able to own those vehicles of death, right?

(Continued in next post)

(2/2)
The cliched response to this is that guns and the other examples are incomparable as “a swimming pool is not a deadly weapon”, and because apparently guns were designed for and only exist to kill. This is patently false. According to a Pew Research report, 30% of gun owners cite having guns primarily for the purpose sport shooting and 13% for collecting. Already you can see that killing is not the sole use case for guns. Really I shouldn’t have to explain this because if you think about it, with the country having more guns than people if guns were only used for killing, America would be on fire. I guess me, and virtually all other gun owners are just using them wrong. And when it does come to killing, in that same Pew report, 38% are for hunting animals and 67% are for protection. And guns being able to be used for (the threat of) killing is not as bad as it first sounds when you consider that defensive gun use occurs much more frequently than offensive gun violence by all evaluations.

So if you really want to go down the path of restricting access to things that you consider to be not absolutely essential because of perceived negative impact, it doesn't make sense to start with guns. Maybe try opioids. At the end of the day, all similar proposals to restrict something based on that logic encounter another wall: you don’t only get what you can prove you need. Just imagine what kind of precedent that would set. The onus is not on me to prove a need, it’s on the regulatory powers to prove that ownership is not justified, despite desire. You shouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail for everything to prove you need it, they should have to fight tooth and nail to prove that you can’t have it. So stop thinking that you can tell other people what they do or do not need. A final point? It’s not called “The Bill of Needs”. When you tie rights to necessity it’s a race to the bottom. Everything you need is provided in prison.

Cowabunga it is then

(((white))) you mean

Or you know just kill anyone that tries enforcing those laws.

Fan-fucking-tastic post.

Stop making this fucking thread.

Attached: stop.jpg (327x340, 45K)

>why did Rosa Parks *need* to sit in the front of the bus?
Rights do not have to be justified.

Attached: 1539953003341.png (800x600, 91K)

I only made one, also no.

>emailing senators helped
You would have better chance raping and killing their daughters

user, Feinstein is my senator...

I wonder whos behind this

Attached: 8E4252AE-AFE6-49AF-925A-1873D046804A.png (680x654, 889K)

Rosa Parks was not in her rights at the time in doing so when a white man came for her seat. that was the point.

you would hide and cry like anne fran/k/

>email
Right.
I'm going to email my senators right now. The senators who have never once stood for my rights and mostly take money from AIPAC to give money to Israel.
I'm going to email them. I'm going to email them a lot.

I think OP was using “email” for something else

What do you propose to do?
>lmao just shoot them
Why don't you start us off?

So if it's not written on a piece of paper, it's not a real right?

You know what you need to do user. God speed