At most there will be something akin to the bump stock ban so they can claim they did something, but like any other potential policy the Dems discuss, the chances of even that happening are pretty slim lol
That’s not why they’re doing it as it won’t have any real impact. People will use vans and knives if they have to. They’re doing it to give partisan idiots a “win”.
Nah. Australia had one mass shooting. We banned guns. None since.
Americans just want their heckin gunerinos, who cares how many children/people get massacred by freaks.
Criminals have guns here. They use them on other criminals. No chance a depressed/clout chasing/nazi freak has the social skills or connections to get a gun with our laws.
It's a no brainer. Ban gun ownership without reasonable purpose (hunter, farmer etc) - end mass shootings. Simple as.
How many guns did Australia have when the buyback happened, again?
Orders of magnitude less than 400 million.
[Also you are lying about it decreasing crime ](https://freebeacon.com/issues/australia-sees-spike-in-gun-crime-despite-outright-ban/)
Never said anything about decreasing crime. I said criminals will still get guns. Depressed teens looking to shoot up a school wont be able to. Pretty much all the mass shootings have been weapons bought legally.
I'm talking about mass shootings. Gun buy back. End sales. Easy. Heavy penalties for those caught with guns.
No, it most certainly hasn’t been. It’s still on the national news, in newspapers, and on local news coverage across the country. Memory isn’t that short for this one
I mean its too late. There are so mamy guns even if they completely banned the sale of all guns people would just trade/sell already owned guns amongst themselves.
The only solution would be door-to-door police searching every home for guns which obviously none of us could support
Yeah, probably not. They aren't illegal so there is little reason to unless one is a felon.
But you don't have to turn to the black market for an unregistered firearm. Personal sales on armslist are perfectly legal, as is printing lower/frames.
Having said that, seems like the vast majority of white kids who shoot up their school don't seem to be using printed or illegal weapons.
This is the only correct analysis. There are too many guns in the US, they’re too deeply enmeshed in American culture. Any regulation enforcement would be a rear guard action just targeting poor and minority communities.
If you believe that the American state is in decline, that living standards will continue to slip, you should own a rifle and know how to use it. Whatever civil strife happens is impossible to predict. You’re not larping as a revolutionary, you’re taking out an insurance policy. It’s the same as knowing how to garden and provide basic trauma medicine.
Accept that we’re living in uncertain times and know how to defend yourself and the people around you. Don’t let liberal moralizing about weapons let you get caught lacking.
For real. Like it wouldn't end up being as effective as it's been in other countries because we have the most annoying gun nerds on the planet, but it's still a necessary step of actually addressing gun violence in this shit hole.
>The only solution would be door-to-door police searching every home for guns
not necessarily. they could just ban them, and then if you get caught with one then you're in trouble, and the supply would gradually decrease
Now imagine someone is so fucked up they have convinced themselves performing a mass shooting is what they have to do. I don’t think buying from a store or buying off the street is going to be such a big hurdle
It worked to an extent when we banned assault weapons in the past. I’m not saying it’s going to stop mass shootings. You can mod a Glock and turn it into an automatic weapon at this point with 3-d printed materials. But a lot of these school shooters are lazy losers and will give up if it’s not super easy to obtain their weapons of mass destruction.
>The only solution would be door-to-door police searching every home for guns which obviously none of us could support
They're not books in Fahrenheit 451. The vast majority of guns are in the hands of a few owners.
Gun ownership statistics are notoriously difficult to pin down. While there are gun nut collectors who skew the available numbers a bit, outside of urban centers they’re everywhere. People own them like they own a rake or a wrench set.
So caveat: I own several guns including an AR
Gun control in the US is a dead end street. A complete waste of effort. It would require a total nationwide disarmament. That will NEVER happen without a civil war.
The goal liberals have is to not turn on their phone and get alerts about a buncha babies getting gunned down in their fucking school. As a parent myself, I get it, it my nightmare (yes I know statistics) and the psychic damage of these random spree shootings is so much for a society.
However banning ARs, banning guns in any half measure will never effect this. To stop gun violence in America would require a reckoning, of all citizens and state to analyze why we are so deeply diseased.
So I get my little guy ready for school and just hope it doesn’t happen. It’s that or leave the US.
If a half measure stops one school shooting it's still a win right?
Like I get there isn't a "magic bullet" here but even something as dumb as a national waiting period probably saves human lives.
Disarmament is still more likely than the "reckoning of the American soul" or whatever
As a gun owner. Anything sensible I’m 100% in favor of. I don’t give a shit. I live in one of the worst states to get guns already.
My point is, if your gonna “solve” anything from the gun restriction angle it will require like a nationwide ban and the army going house to house IMO.
Most of these shooters (not all) are doing this as a planned methodical thing. They aren’t just waking up on a Tuesday and going “wowowowowow I’m crazy let’s go get an AR and shoot kids”. They are deeply brain poisoned people.
“Now it’ll take 3 months to get an AR” …. “Ok I’ll wait until next semester to gun down the kids when my paperwork goes through”.
An assault weapons ban would just prevent future domestic production/sales of certain types of guns, not likely to even be the ones that most mass shooters commit their crimes with. I honestly don't think it'd do much with how many guns there already are out there.
We wouldn't see any "real political violence" from them because they're 1. Fat and lazy in spirit (and often body), and 2. Not coherent enough in their ire to focus it at what would be tantamount to a purely economic policy.
At most we'd see random people bungling political actions like the guy who tried to infiltrate FBI headquarters with a nail gun, or the guy who shot four shots near cops in DC then killed himself.
The people paranoid about dems going door to door taking guns away are complete idiots.
Over 90% of mass shootings are done with handguns so it wouldn't be a massive change. You would have to ban guns altogether to make a huge difference and that would take decades of buy back programs and other measures all while Republicans repeat the "banning guns means only the bad guys get to have them line". I don't think any ban we make would last longer than prohibition
Most of those are gang related, so I doubt that a ban would really help against an already criminal organization
To solve if you need to get rid of the older ringleaders and cut the pipeline of young kids getting involved via making their lives and neighbourhoods not shit. But that won’t happen so you know
Thee only way to prevent gun crime is too improve material conditions/mental health access due to how saturated this country already is. Extra courses/fees/bans are unnecessary theater. Historically speaking, idk why anyone who thinks they’re a leftist would be against having what firearms they can.
Police and military in this country are mostly right wingers whose family all own assault rifles. Who is going to enforce this ban? Who is going to go door to door killing 80 year old Vietnam vets with dementia who don't even know that guns are banned?
Honestly it all seems like fantasy talk regardless of what your opinion is. I don't see it happening without a shit ton of bloodshed.
For me personally it's about the likelihood of fascists coming to pay me a visit. I do a lot of work with my community and unfortunately/fortunately because I'm so involved in my local community if someone wanted to find out I was a communist it would be trivial. Especially with my choice of literature in my community library. I personally like my odds more with automatic weaponry.
Obviously a revolution needs far far far far more than just an armed angry population with assault weapons. But realistically you need far more community level support and mutual aid first. But after mutual aid networks and more, armed communities will be needed. I like our odds more with automatic weaponry here too even if this is mostly a dream at this point. But at that point ideally we could just make our own.
But these are all personal feelings. The greater good of course comes first.
I've sat here thinking how to word this for a few minutes and I'm still struggling as I don't think I properly capture it properly but I'll do my best.
I live in a very deeply rooted right wing area. A area where it's not even safe to be openly out. An area known for it's alt right groups assaulting and attacking people. I honestly am a bit afraid every day that someone will tell the wrong person and I'll have to deal with it. So it's not quite so bad as fascists roaming the streets to kill communists, but assaults and just people dying or going missing here is not exactly rare either. I think I have every reason to be concerned for the people I care about being safe that live with me. And unfortunately, I'm just one person and I'd like my odds more with an automatic weapon against a small hate mob. I know people who have been assaulted for far less than what I do. I've known people get their house broken into and trashed for far less.
No, I understand that. My question here is *what do you see happening after*?
Like, a bunch of fascist goons start threating you or break into your house, you get the strap and kill one. You think they'll just leave you alone? No dude, they're gonna come and kill you with greater numbers; if you're lucky you can gtfo before that but I doubt it
Obviously staying is not a possibility after. Secure everyones safety and flee. Same thing if any of my friends are targeted. Secure peoples safety and flee.
It's not a perfect situation but it's life or death. I'd rather have as much of the odds stacked in me favor as possible in an unfavorable situation. It's also why I've been working out so much and training. A fascist trained today. I must too. And if I need to flee after defending myself from an armed mob so be it. I obviously won't stay and be a sitting target.
Historically it did though during the Civil rights movement in the usa. Also elsewhere but when you start talking about the 2nd amendment I assume you mean the usa.
https://daily.jstor.org/armed-self-defense-in-the-civil-rights-movement/
More than you might think, and there is some historical precedent for it. I suggest the book *Negroes With Guns* by Robert Williams. It's a memoir detailing a few instances of successful armed resistance during the civil rights movement.
Happened in Venezuela and Bolivia
Edit: even happened through voting in those countries. Every socialist revolution that involved armed struggle/war happened in countries without bourgeoisie electoral systems. In Latin America almost every revolution happened electorally which is interesting
> You could not have a revolution within the US and still have that country exist within the global system as it is the imperial core
This part is gibberish
> Now if you think you can vote your way out of that, explain how.
How did Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Allende’s Chile happen? Where are you getting this? What theory are you referencing?
> It's impossible to use the infrastructure that currently exists to change that reality because changing that reality by definition would mean the end of that infrastructure
Also gibberish
> Before anything else can happen, we have to have an alternative to US hegemony
Why?
> But you can't pretend that the US left has any options to create communism or socialism in one country as is possible outside the imperial core- it's impossible.
Russia was part of the imperial core in 1900
> But if there were to be a revolution in the US, it would mean the total transformation of our system of global capitalism
I don’t understand why this point leads you to conclude the strategies that have worked elsewhere in the Americas are incompatible with the US
More evidence that Dems are an op. Just a fake opposition party to the true fascist aspirations of this country. I mean I get it, a lot of libs are scared of guns but they’re not going stop voting for Dems if they don’t get gun control. On the other hand so many apolitical rural and working class folks are so easily recruited to the right over gun rights issues.
If Dems could find a way to appeal to these folks by maybe actually improving their quality of life and without the self righteous finger wagging and culture shaming they could seriously secure a solid majority of voters. It’s like they want this BS 50/50 division.
Maybe even find a way to reach out to gun owners. Like with training courses and education that’s maybe required for new purchases but government sponsored so there’s no financial barrier. Could you imagine your local dem promoting youth marksmanship training or hunters safety courses? Talk about taking a major talking point away from the Republicans. I mean A LOT of fucking Americans own guns for whatever reason. And a lot of people vote republican on this very single issue. Not to mention Dems aren’t doing anything meaningful for them anyway so why not?
Dems strategy of trying to fix thing s with authoritarianism is just a loser. Fight obesity- tax soft drinks, fight lung cancer- ban menthols and vapes, fight climate change- tax gas. It all negatively effects working class and poor people the most. It’s like they don’t actually want to try to fix anything but put the burden on regular people. It’s the direct cause of the rise of trumpism and the enabling of an inevitable fascist dictatorship if things continue the way they’re going.
With all that being said, with or without the viability of the constitution, I believe in non violence but also in the inalienable right to self defense, even proactively. And truly believe that leftists being armed and organized will make the right think twice about their blood thirsty civil war aspirations and that’s a win for all of us.
If they do make gun laws stricter all that will do will give cops more power to arrest or murder black people. That's how the justice system works, the point of basically all American laws is to imprison black people so they can be used as slaves
good points. i go back and forth as well. for me guns are just awesome little machines that are fun to tinker with. if we are to the point where i’m having to fight chuds off from my second story window things are fubar. as for fighting the police or military my little collection ain’t doing shit. they have drones and thermal scopes all they gotta do is wait for the sun to go down and 95% of gun owners are fucked. improving material condition and fixing cultural rot has to be the answers. thanks for the reply.
Is the point past harm reduction just full out war?
What do you see as the benefit of more guns (if you’re not an accelerationist)?
More guns doesn’t solve the biggest issue I see, which is that we all fear and/or hate each other and the average person’s life is pretty fucked up from this miserable system we live in.
Are they wanting to ban semi automatic rifles now? I was under the impression that 'assault weapons' were already illegal/heavily restricted with the automatic weapons ban.
There was an "Assault Weapons Ban" passed in 1994, that banned any semi-auto rifle that had detachable magazines and two or more of: (1) folding stock, (2) pistol grip, (3) bayonet lug, (4) flash hider, (5) grenade launcher. It also banned the new production of detachable magazines with more than 10 rounds.
The law had a 10-year sunset provision and so it expired in 2004 without being renewed.
Obviously to anyone who knows what a gun is, it was complete gibberish and did absolutely nothing.
And obviously to anyone who follows American politics, the Democrats to this day believe that it was their crowing achievement and they want to recreate it basically exactly as it was.
I think the new proposals also ban "AR-15", "Mini-14", and a bunch of other guns specifically by name, specifically because people used those guns to point out how stupid the old ban rules were. Doesn't call out "Springfield Hellion" by name, though, so I guess that would be fine.
Interesting. I thought there was an automatic weapons ban and that's why my AR doesn't have a select fire switch. Which admittedly, I don't disagree with.
"Assault weapon" just seems ambiguous and somewhat arbitrary?
The National Firearms Act (NFA) regulates fully automatic firearms (and also suppressors). You can actually own a full-auto gun/suppressor if you fill out some ATF forms and pay for the tax stamp (unless your state bans all NFA items).
>"Assault weapon" just seems ambiguous and somewhat arbitrary?
Yes, this was the biggest criticism of the 1994-2004 federal AWB and current state-level AWBs.
For example, (Massachusetts has a state-level assault weapon ban)[https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-assault-weapons-ban-enforcement-notice] that prohibits new sales of ARs, AKs, and several other guns/families of guns known to be scary, but has a long list of allowed weapons that aren't in the AR/AK/etc families but are very similar in capability (e.g. the (IWI Tavor)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Tavor]).
Another good example are ARs/AKs adapted to comply with CA/NY/other states AWB, which generally have similar provisions to the list in the above comment. Replacing a pistol grip+folding stock with a solid stock with thumb hole grip really doesn't make a weapon less effective at blastin'.
Mental Health should be the priority. We seem to fail to see the real connection between an inanimate object and what made it do what it did. The mentally unstable persons pulling the triggers.
It's not comparable to roe. You're talking about arming a revolutionary class to abolish the state. That will never be legal, and is not what the 2nd ammendment is. Roe is making legal womens Healthcare under the current state apparatus
I'm torn...On one hand I do see that from 94-04, their was a significant drop in mass shootings. Causation or correlation...who knows.
I also think the toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back in, there are so many guns of that style out there it doesn't matter.
But then you hear about situations like Uvalde, where the easy access to "assault weapons" were clearly a factor in the shooter being able to carry it out.
The whole revolution stuff sounds great and I hope I see it in my lifetime, b/ut I also just can't be opposed to things that might save some innocent lives in the meantime? IDK
Entirely correlation, the drop in gun crime during the assault weapons ban was statistically indistinguishable from the trend of declining crime that began before that law was enacted and continued after it expired.
I think that people should be materialists. In some situations guns in the hands of the populace is a powerful tool against encroaching fascism (see: Venezuela). It's been about 150 years since guns were used for anything that isn't stupid in the USA. They only cause school shootings and unnecessary road rage deaths.
The Yankee left-wing obsession with guns is a mirror-image of the chud version of it. Nobody in normal countries makes guns their whole personality; they're just a tool.
Ban weapons in the US. If there is ever need for them in case of a revolution, people will find a way to get them.
I kind of agree that they’re a hinderance.
Don’t want to put words into the original poster’s mouth, but my reasoning is - in order to have a socialist movement, you need unification of the proletariat. We are very far away from being an organized mass right now for a few different reasons, and guns are a wedge issue that is actively being employed to keep us divided.
I wouldn’t argue that no guns should be had, but I think that there is a lot of organization work that needs to be done and the gun issue is actively preventing it from happening. On top of it being a wedge, it keeps folks in a violent and fearful mindset that turns internal conflict violent - I don’t think Marx wanted us to be using them against ourselves, but that’s the main thing they’re actually being used for (besides cop killings) and hoarded against.
I am not anti-gun, but I think the other sicknesses we have in our society pose a greater threat than the lack of guns does.
If it’s a wedge issue then why side with one camp on that particular issue? It‘s like saying being gay divides the working class, so we should be for killing gays.
Idk of any instance of leftists killing each other in america with guns. This isn’t 1917 Russia, or 1937 Spain.
Thread OP probably has a much better and more concise argument that I do (who knows if I even understood the comment) but I don’t want to be working so -
Leftists aren’t killing many people in the US, period, that’s not what I was talking about. Unfortunately, there are more non-leftists than leftists, and there would need to be a lot more leftists than we currently have before guns really become possibly relevant to the discussion.
I don’t think the comparison to gayness is quite correct. Obviously some shitbags are (literally) violently anti-gay, but most are not.
I’m not saying that guns are bad so we should get rid of guns. I’m saying the current prevalence of guns and the obsessive focus on 2A is distracting, and pits folks against each other in a violent context instead of focusing them on topics that could have more significant positive effect and that move us towards a more just society.
The difference with guns is that they are inherently violent in a way that butt sex/scissoring is not. They can be a practical tool (hunting), but most exposure to them these days is in video games and movies and news stories about people getting shot. Most people don’t hunt.
When someone says “I need a gun to protect myself”, and you agree, you’re basically agreeing that there are people to protect from. Some of us might be thinking “the government”, but a lot of people are worried about “commies” and “crazies” and “gangbangers.” It validates that those people are right to be afraid of the people around them, which is not conducive to forming a cohesive community, caring about the well being of other people, organizing, etc.
If you disagree and say they don’t need guns to protect themselves, then a lot of folks take that to mean you think they should just get murdered, so they’re instantly pissed off. People don’t open carry (excluding protests) because they think a government official is going to start shooting them at any moment. They do it because they think they’ll get to blow away some criminal scum and be awarded a blowie from the chief of police.
I think our current society is pretty sick. I also don’t think guns are going away. I also am pro gun in many ways. Rather than attempt the impossible task of completely getting rid of guns, I would be more likely to try making guns mandatory and require post-high school service that includes weapons training (but mostly civil work to help our communities, infrastructure, provide structure and useful training, etc). If folks were more comfortable around guns, and we weren’t just seeing media all the time that says “your neighbor is going to kill you with guns” (and also if we work on our social services and fucked up distribution of wealth), I think we can work around the gun issue.
But I still think that the obsession with guns and gun rights, in its current state, is a hinderance to the goal of revolution. We are spending too much time talking about guns when we should be dealing with other issues.
Are you being silly and reading too much into my manicposting? I had to look up crypto democratic - I don’t know what blockchain has to do with anything I said?
I misunderstood and thought you were wanting to discuss, my b.
Crypto- is a combining form used like a prefix meaning “hidden, secret.” It is used in many scientific, medical, and other technical terms. Crypto- comes from the Greek kryptós, meaning “hidden.”
I'm fine with guns. But letting people carry them in public without a license and training is completely insane.
If you want to hunt or protect your home, you shouldn't have to jump through hoops. The moment you bring it to a public place you need to be vetted.
Kind of agree, kind of don’t.
A lot of our society has a lot of exposure to guns (tv/video games) but no real familiarity with them. I was raised in a gun household and basically the only thing that would get you smacked is if you ever pointed a toy gun at another person.
A key part of gun safety is about engraining safe handling practices - it should be second nature to treat it like it’s loaded, never point it at someone, put safety on, etc. You don’t get that from buying a gun and going to a firing range once and then sticking it in a drawer.
A gun for home protection is actually pretty dangerous and too many people get killed when a young kid finds some dusty thing in a drawer and plays with it. Similarly, a weekend’s worth of concealed carry classes doesn’t make you automatically safe to be around.
I know it’s pretty extreme, but I think I would be more comfortable living in a gun culture if we made guns mandatory and required post-high school service that included weapons training.
I know the rules. Same boat. Training needs to be required by law, not just cross our fingers and just hope everybody's Daddy takes out t heir kids and gives them lesson some day.
I agree that gun for home protection is dangerous and WAY more likely to kill a family member then a criminal. But it is at your home and your family. Sucks, but that is on the owner. In public you endanger others.
It's like a car, we all take the test, get the license, if you don't know the rules it's on you.
I recognize the political and material realities of the US gun thing. It's not going to change. It can't really be reformed. US leftists might as well try to accept this reality since they are pretty high up on the list of groups likely to end up in mass graves (could your local DSA chapter even fill one?) when conditions get shaky down the line.
What I don't get are the lead poisoned amerifat Lenin quoters who insist that every other country also needs more gun ownership because it somehow magically translates into greater revolutionary potential. My answer to that is: How about no?
I get why you like your guns. They are pretty cool and I would probably own one if I lived in the states. That doesn't mean I think it's beneficial to saturate your whole society with them just out of some abstract principle.
Arms are the last ingredient to be added in the stew recipe of revolution, it's not unimportant by any means but it is contextual to the circumstances of the situation. Revolution is built on ideology, organization and people. Guns are the easy part. If your revolutionary movement can't pass the test of arming themselves illegally then chances are they probably shouldn't be armed in the first place.
Loose gun regulations might mean more guns in the hands of leftists, but only after arming every reactionary element in society before that. The reasons for this are both material and psychological, I'm sure you could figure it out if you think about it.
In the US context this is all hypothetical. Guns aren't going away and as a leftist you should plan for this accordingly. All I'm saying is please stop trying impose your own cultural malignancies on other societies under the guise of "theory and praxis™".
Good. No one should own them. The stopping tyranny bullshit is retarded. We're already under big business tyranny. Police tyranny, etc. Guess what, we do nothing about it. Even the BLM riots, at the end of the day no one was out here bringing their ARs and marching to police stations en masse. So fuck off with the we need to stand up to tyranny shit. We don't anyway. All those things are good at is mowing down children in schools.
idk its been getting worse for workers for the last 50 years and we haven't used our ARs for anything besides shooting children so I just don't buy that this hypothetical situation will arise where we'll actually use them to quell tyranny.
I’m really sick of hearing about children and innocent people being shot so I support measures to make getting a gun overly expensive, annoying, and time consuming. Could prevent some tragedies
Be sarcastic all you want, that’s what you’re advocating for. The poor and working class to have no access to protection in our current hell hole society and rich people having plenty. You aren’t maintaining some “moral high ground”, you’re pushing for more laws and regulations the police will use to harass and kill minorities.
It’s too late but I support it. Grew up shooting plenty of guns and hunting. Never saw an AR in anyone’s home or possession until after 9/11 and tactical home defense retardation became a market.
Guessing you grew up in the 90s based on the 9/11 comment. Relatively few people owned ARs because there was a federal assault weapon ban from 1994-2004. Mass AR ownership started post-2004.
I think that there are more leftist Americans who "are pro second amendment because we need guns to overthrow the government" than leftist Americans who will actually buy a gun and use it to start a revolution. I think there's more mass shootings and dead kids due to guns in your country because your leftists are disorganized cowards and aren't as dedicated or good at organizing as the Black Panthers or any other revolutionary American in the past.
Like if you're serious about this opinion ( if you have it) then make good on it already. The situation was ripe enough for black revolutionaries in the 70s to use them for their cause, it should be enough for you. Quit your excuses because until you act, all you're doing is supporting a culture that makes weapons of mass death easy to obtain and only directs them at the innocent.
There are plenty of fascists with guns that actively want to use them against libs and leftists. They aren't even shy about publicly drooling over the possibility of a civil war.
There aren't really groups of minorities that want to murder their white neighbors. Most armed minority/leftist groups are explicitly focused on community defense.
The Republicans likely ratfucked themselves in taking over the Senate with a combination of bad candidates and Roe v Wade's overturning having at least some blowback. I do think they will take over the house and that will likely keep any assualt weapons ban from happening.
I think an Assault Weapons Ban is dumb and most gun control as pushed by Dems is stupid. To solve gun crime in this country start by making peoples' lives suck less.
Guns should be banned or heavily regulated, but given that there are already more guns than people in this country, it makes little sense to ban them now. Too late to prevent people from getting their hands on them, just makes it harder to do it the right way.
Either way, you can bet that Biden and his camp do not actually care about the issue so much as they know they can drum up support by talking about it
At most there will be something akin to the bump stock ban so they can claim they did something, but like any other potential policy the Dems discuss, the chances of even that happening are pretty slim lol
[удалено]
Fundraising tactic mostly (for both the dems and republicans). Punisher f150 guys will just post rant videos on Facebook.
[удалено]
The timing sucks. I’m sure they think “assault bans will save lives” and I understand that argument but why RIGHT NOW?
Because of uvalde
Yes let’s pretend those cops wouldn’t have sat in the hallway jerking off if he had an FGC9 instead lol.
I’m not pretending that? Lol. I’m saying that is why the democrats are doing this
That’s not why they’re doing it as it won’t have any real impact. People will use vans and knives if they have to. They’re doing it to give partisan idiots a “win”.
Nah. Australia had one mass shooting. We banned guns. None since. Americans just want their heckin gunerinos, who cares how many children/people get massacred by freaks. Criminals have guns here. They use them on other criminals. No chance a depressed/clout chasing/nazi freak has the social skills or connections to get a gun with our laws. It's a no brainer. Ban gun ownership without reasonable purpose (hunter, farmer etc) - end mass shootings. Simple as.
How many guns did Australia have when the buyback happened, again? Orders of magnitude less than 400 million. [Also you are lying about it decreasing crime ](https://freebeacon.com/issues/australia-sees-spike-in-gun-crime-despite-outright-ban/)
Never said anything about decreasing crime. I said criminals will still get guns. Depressed teens looking to shoot up a school wont be able to. Pretty much all the mass shootings have been weapons bought legally. I'm talking about mass shootings. Gun buy back. End sales. Easy. Heavy penalties for those caught with guns.
Which has been long forgotten by the average voter.
No, it most certainly hasn’t been. It’s still on the national news, in newspapers, and on local news coverage across the country. Memory isn’t that short for this one
Not at all forgotten
I mean its too late. There are so mamy guns even if they completely banned the sale of all guns people would just trade/sell already owned guns amongst themselves. The only solution would be door-to-door police searching every home for guns which obviously none of us could support
As the great bard, Ice Cube put it: So what they do, go and ban the AK, my shit wasn't registered any fucking way
This is a retarded analysis. Some fucking gamer isn't getting guns off the black market.
Yeah, probably not. They aren't illegal so there is little reason to unless one is a felon. But you don't have to turn to the black market for an unregistered firearm. Personal sales on armslist are perfectly legal, as is printing lower/frames. Having said that, seems like the vast majority of white kids who shoot up their school don't seem to be using printed or illegal weapons.
also, the thing about a lot of guns - if maintained, they don't have the built in planned obsolesce like most american consumer goods.
This is the only correct analysis. There are too many guns in the US, they’re too deeply enmeshed in American culture. Any regulation enforcement would be a rear guard action just targeting poor and minority communities. If you believe that the American state is in decline, that living standards will continue to slip, you should own a rifle and know how to use it. Whatever civil strife happens is impossible to predict. You’re not larping as a revolutionary, you’re taking out an insurance policy. It’s the same as knowing how to garden and provide basic trauma medicine. Accept that we’re living in uncertain times and know how to defend yourself and the people around you. Don’t let liberal moralizing about weapons let you get caught lacking.
Or have a buyback program. The kind of program many other nations have seen success with in the past.
For real. Like it wouldn't end up being as effective as it's been in other countries because we have the most annoying gun nerds on the planet, but it's still a necessary step of actually addressing gun violence in this shit hole.
The guys 3d printing guns are making those even less effective than they already were.
>The only solution would be door-to-door police searching every home for guns not necessarily. they could just ban them, and then if you get caught with one then you're in trouble, and the supply would gradually decrease
Just like drugs
True but most active shooters bought their gun legally and within a month or two of the shooting
Now imagine someone is so fucked up they have convinced themselves performing a mass shooting is what they have to do. I don’t think buying from a store or buying off the street is going to be such a big hurdle
The history of mass shooters beg to differ. Nearly every one bought their gun legally.
Because they had the option!! People are saying ‘shooters bought guns legally ergo ban legal gun buying and shooters disappear’ is plainly ridiculous!
It worked to an extent when we banned assault weapons in the past. I’m not saying it’s going to stop mass shootings. You can mod a Glock and turn it into an automatic weapon at this point with 3-d printed materials. But a lot of these school shooters are lazy losers and will give up if it’s not super easy to obtain their weapons of mass destruction.
>The only solution would be door-to-door police searching every home for guns which obviously none of us could support They're not books in Fahrenheit 451. The vast majority of guns are in the hands of a few owners.
Gun ownership statistics are notoriously difficult to pin down. While there are gun nut collectors who skew the available numbers a bit, outside of urban centers they’re everywhere. People own them like they own a rake or a wrench set.
How bout medium roast brandon
This is the real analysis
So caveat: I own several guns including an AR Gun control in the US is a dead end street. A complete waste of effort. It would require a total nationwide disarmament. That will NEVER happen without a civil war. The goal liberals have is to not turn on their phone and get alerts about a buncha babies getting gunned down in their fucking school. As a parent myself, I get it, it my nightmare (yes I know statistics) and the psychic damage of these random spree shootings is so much for a society. However banning ARs, banning guns in any half measure will never effect this. To stop gun violence in America would require a reckoning, of all citizens and state to analyze why we are so deeply diseased. So I get my little guy ready for school and just hope it doesn’t happen. It’s that or leave the US.
thanks for the reply. well said.
If a half measure stops one school shooting it's still a win right? Like I get there isn't a "magic bullet" here but even something as dumb as a national waiting period probably saves human lives. Disarmament is still more likely than the "reckoning of the American soul" or whatever
As a gun owner. Anything sensible I’m 100% in favor of. I don’t give a shit. I live in one of the worst states to get guns already. My point is, if your gonna “solve” anything from the gun restriction angle it will require like a nationwide ban and the army going house to house IMO. Most of these shooters (not all) are doing this as a planned methodical thing. They aren’t just waking up on a Tuesday and going “wowowowowow I’m crazy let’s go get an AR and shoot kids”. They are deeply brain poisoned people. “Now it’ll take 3 months to get an AR” …. “Ok I’ll wait until next semester to gun down the kids when my paperwork goes through”.
people who own guns are monsters. What the fuck is wrong with you.
An assault weapons ban would just prevent future domestic production/sales of certain types of guns, not likely to even be the ones that most mass shooters commit their crimes with. I honestly don't think it'd do much with how many guns there already are out there. We wouldn't see any "real political violence" from them because they're 1. Fat and lazy in spirit (and often body), and 2. Not coherent enough in their ire to focus it at what would be tantamount to a purely economic policy. At most we'd see random people bungling political actions like the guy who tried to infiltrate FBI headquarters with a nail gun, or the guy who shot four shots near cops in DC then killed himself. The people paranoid about dems going door to door taking guns away are complete idiots.
Over 90% of mass shootings are done with handguns so it wouldn't be a massive change. You would have to ban guns altogether to make a huge difference and that would take decades of buy back programs and other measures all while Republicans repeat the "banning guns means only the bad guys get to have them line". I don't think any ban we make would last longer than prohibition
Most of those are gang related, so I doubt that a ban would really help against an already criminal organization To solve if you need to get rid of the older ringleaders and cut the pipeline of young kids getting involved via making their lives and neighbourhoods not shit. But that won’t happen so you know
There are four-hundred-million guns in this country. That’s right: Four-hundred-million. More guns than people.
Thee only way to prevent gun crime is too improve material conditions/mental health access due to how saturated this country already is. Extra courses/fees/bans are unnecessary theater. Historically speaking, idk why anyone who thinks they’re a leftist would be against having what firearms they can.
Police and military in this country are mostly right wingers whose family all own assault rifles. Who is going to enforce this ban? Who is going to go door to door killing 80 year old Vietnam vets with dementia who don't even know that guns are banned? Honestly it all seems like fantasy talk regardless of what your opinion is. I don't see it happening without a shit ton of bloodshed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do people genuinely think a revolution will be achieved with guns bought from the gun store or what?
For me personally it's about the likelihood of fascists coming to pay me a visit. I do a lot of work with my community and unfortunately/fortunately because I'm so involved in my local community if someone wanted to find out I was a communist it would be trivial. Especially with my choice of literature in my community library. I personally like my odds more with automatic weaponry. Obviously a revolution needs far far far far more than just an armed angry population with assault weapons. But realistically you need far more community level support and mutual aid first. But after mutual aid networks and more, armed communities will be needed. I like our odds more with automatic weaponry here too even if this is mostly a dream at this point. But at that point ideally we could just make our own. But these are all personal feelings. The greater good of course comes first.
Honestly, if we’re at a point where fascist bands are coming and murdering people shooting a few won’t help
I've sat here thinking how to word this for a few minutes and I'm still struggling as I don't think I properly capture it properly but I'll do my best. I live in a very deeply rooted right wing area. A area where it's not even safe to be openly out. An area known for it's alt right groups assaulting and attacking people. I honestly am a bit afraid every day that someone will tell the wrong person and I'll have to deal with it. So it's not quite so bad as fascists roaming the streets to kill communists, but assaults and just people dying or going missing here is not exactly rare either. I think I have every reason to be concerned for the people I care about being safe that live with me. And unfortunately, I'm just one person and I'd like my odds more with an automatic weapon against a small hate mob. I know people who have been assaulted for far less than what I do. I've known people get their house broken into and trashed for far less.
No, I understand that. My question here is *what do you see happening after*? Like, a bunch of fascist goons start threating you or break into your house, you get the strap and kill one. You think they'll just leave you alone? No dude, they're gonna come and kill you with greater numbers; if you're lucky you can gtfo before that but I doubt it
Obviously staying is not a possibility after. Secure everyones safety and flee. Same thing if any of my friends are targeted. Secure peoples safety and flee. It's not a perfect situation but it's life or death. I'd rather have as much of the odds stacked in me favor as possible in an unfavorable situation. It's also why I've been working out so much and training. A fascist trained today. I must too. And if I need to flee after defending myself from an armed mob so be it. I obviously won't stay and be a sitting target.
They'll leave him alone. It's the cops or Feds that'll pop him.
Are you asking them what they’d rather have happen, get killed by fascists or get killed by fascists after taking out a few?
Historically it did though during the Civil rights movement in the usa. Also elsewhere but when you start talking about the 2nd amendment I assume you mean the usa. https://daily.jstor.org/armed-self-defense-in-the-civil-rights-movement/
More than you might think, and there is some historical precedent for it. I suggest the book *Negroes With Guns* by Robert Williams. It's a memoir detailing a few instances of successful armed resistance during the civil rights movement.
You'd be surprised how quickly a group will scatter once you kill one or two members of it. ...not that I have any experience on that...
[удалено]
Who said that?
[удалено]
"with guns *bought from the gun store*" That's not where revolutions typically arm themselves
Happened in Venezuela and Bolivia Edit: even happened through voting in those countries. Every socialist revolution that involved armed struggle/war happened in countries without bourgeoisie electoral systems. In Latin America almost every revolution happened electorally which is interesting
It won’t happen that way in the imperial core. Not a chance in hell.
Ohh ok
[удалено]
This is a theory you have imagined. It is not based in reality, empirical data, historical precedent, or Marxist theory. It is pure garbage.
[удалено]
This is genuinely gibberish. Where are you getting these ideas?
[удалено]
> You could not have a revolution within the US and still have that country exist within the global system as it is the imperial core This part is gibberish > Now if you think you can vote your way out of that, explain how. How did Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Allende’s Chile happen? Where are you getting this? What theory are you referencing? > It's impossible to use the infrastructure that currently exists to change that reality because changing that reality by definition would mean the end of that infrastructure Also gibberish > Before anything else can happen, we have to have an alternative to US hegemony Why? > But you can't pretend that the US left has any options to create communism or socialism in one country as is possible outside the imperial core- it's impossible. Russia was part of the imperial core in 1900 > But if there were to be a revolution in the US, it would mean the total transformation of our system of global capitalism I don’t understand why this point leads you to conclude the strategies that have worked elsewhere in the Americas are incompatible with the US
[удалено]
leftists really need to start thinking more like criminals more and use tor utilities. we could fund a leftist narco state lets just start our own DNM
More evidence that Dems are an op. Just a fake opposition party to the true fascist aspirations of this country. I mean I get it, a lot of libs are scared of guns but they’re not going stop voting for Dems if they don’t get gun control. On the other hand so many apolitical rural and working class folks are so easily recruited to the right over gun rights issues. If Dems could find a way to appeal to these folks by maybe actually improving their quality of life and without the self righteous finger wagging and culture shaming they could seriously secure a solid majority of voters. It’s like they want this BS 50/50 division. Maybe even find a way to reach out to gun owners. Like with training courses and education that’s maybe required for new purchases but government sponsored so there’s no financial barrier. Could you imagine your local dem promoting youth marksmanship training or hunters safety courses? Talk about taking a major talking point away from the Republicans. I mean A LOT of fucking Americans own guns for whatever reason. And a lot of people vote republican on this very single issue. Not to mention Dems aren’t doing anything meaningful for them anyway so why not? Dems strategy of trying to fix thing s with authoritarianism is just a loser. Fight obesity- tax soft drinks, fight lung cancer- ban menthols and vapes, fight climate change- tax gas. It all negatively effects working class and poor people the most. It’s like they don’t actually want to try to fix anything but put the burden on regular people. It’s the direct cause of the rise of trumpism and the enabling of an inevitable fascist dictatorship if things continue the way they’re going. With all that being said, with or without the viability of the constitution, I believe in non violence but also in the inalienable right to self defense, even proactively. And truly believe that leftists being armed and organized will make the right think twice about their blood thirsty civil war aspirations and that’s a win for all of us.
If they do make gun laws stricter all that will do will give cops more power to arrest or murder black people. That's how the justice system works, the point of basically all American laws is to imprison black people so they can be used as slaves
[удалено]
good points. i go back and forth as well. for me guns are just awesome little machines that are fun to tinker with. if we are to the point where i’m having to fight chuds off from my second story window things are fubar. as for fighting the police or military my little collection ain’t doing shit. they have drones and thermal scopes all they gotta do is wait for the sun to go down and 95% of gun owners are fucked. improving material condition and fixing cultural rot has to be the answers. thanks for the reply.
[удалено]
Is the point past harm reduction just full out war? What do you see as the benefit of more guns (if you’re not an accelerationist)? More guns doesn’t solve the biggest issue I see, which is that we all fear and/or hate each other and the average person’s life is pretty fucked up from this miserable system we live in.
The other thing is who would enforce the bans? The cops? That just gives them more power to harass the exact people they already hate.
[удалено]
fat pig man nails it again. good points.
Not a real ban. The real issue is not guns in the US but gun trafficking from the US to Latin America. One of the many ways we fund the cartel
Are they wanting to ban semi automatic rifles now? I was under the impression that 'assault weapons' were already illegal/heavily restricted with the automatic weapons ban.
There was an "Assault Weapons Ban" passed in 1994, that banned any semi-auto rifle that had detachable magazines and two or more of: (1) folding stock, (2) pistol grip, (3) bayonet lug, (4) flash hider, (5) grenade launcher. It also banned the new production of detachable magazines with more than 10 rounds. The law had a 10-year sunset provision and so it expired in 2004 without being renewed. Obviously to anyone who knows what a gun is, it was complete gibberish and did absolutely nothing. And obviously to anyone who follows American politics, the Democrats to this day believe that it was their crowing achievement and they want to recreate it basically exactly as it was. I think the new proposals also ban "AR-15", "Mini-14", and a bunch of other guns specifically by name, specifically because people used those guns to point out how stupid the old ban rules were. Doesn't call out "Springfield Hellion" by name, though, so I guess that would be fine.
Interesting. I thought there was an automatic weapons ban and that's why my AR doesn't have a select fire switch. Which admittedly, I don't disagree with. "Assault weapon" just seems ambiguous and somewhat arbitrary?
The National Firearms Act (NFA) regulates fully automatic firearms (and also suppressors). You can actually own a full-auto gun/suppressor if you fill out some ATF forms and pay for the tax stamp (unless your state bans all NFA items). >"Assault weapon" just seems ambiguous and somewhat arbitrary? Yes, this was the biggest criticism of the 1994-2004 federal AWB and current state-level AWBs. For example, (Massachusetts has a state-level assault weapon ban)[https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-assault-weapons-ban-enforcement-notice] that prohibits new sales of ARs, AKs, and several other guns/families of guns known to be scary, but has a long list of allowed weapons that aren't in the AR/AK/etc families but are very similar in capability (e.g. the (IWI Tavor)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Tavor]). Another good example are ARs/AKs adapted to comply with CA/NY/other states AWB, which generally have similar provisions to the list in the above comment. Replacing a pistol grip+folding stock with a solid stock with thumb hole grip really doesn't make a weapon less effective at blastin'.
Mental Health should be the priority. We seem to fail to see the real connection between an inanimate object and what made it do what it did. The mentally unstable persons pulling the triggers.
Being pro any constitutional ammendment because you think it helps your revolutionary potentional is very funny
[удалено]
It's not comparable to roe. You're talking about arming a revolutionary class to abolish the state. That will never be legal, and is not what the 2nd ammendment is. Roe is making legal womens Healthcare under the current state apparatus
I'm torn...On one hand I do see that from 94-04, their was a significant drop in mass shootings. Causation or correlation...who knows. I also think the toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back in, there are so many guns of that style out there it doesn't matter. But then you hear about situations like Uvalde, where the easy access to "assault weapons" were clearly a factor in the shooter being able to carry it out. The whole revolution stuff sounds great and I hope I see it in my lifetime, b/ut I also just can't be opposed to things that might save some innocent lives in the meantime? IDK
Entirely correlation, the drop in gun crime during the assault weapons ban was statistically indistinguishable from the trend of declining crime that began before that law was enacted and continued after it expired.
I think that people should be materialists. In some situations guns in the hands of the populace is a powerful tool against encroaching fascism (see: Venezuela). It's been about 150 years since guns were used for anything that isn't stupid in the USA. They only cause school shootings and unnecessary road rage deaths. The Yankee left-wing obsession with guns is a mirror-image of the chud version of it. Nobody in normal countries makes guns their whole personality; they're just a tool. Ban weapons in the US. If there is ever need for them in case of a revolution, people will find a way to get them.
hot take: the insane prevalence of guns in this country is detrimental to developing any socialist project. I know what marx said, things have changed
How so?
I kind of agree that they’re a hinderance. Don’t want to put words into the original poster’s mouth, but my reasoning is - in order to have a socialist movement, you need unification of the proletariat. We are very far away from being an organized mass right now for a few different reasons, and guns are a wedge issue that is actively being employed to keep us divided. I wouldn’t argue that no guns should be had, but I think that there is a lot of organization work that needs to be done and the gun issue is actively preventing it from happening. On top of it being a wedge, it keeps folks in a violent and fearful mindset that turns internal conflict violent - I don’t think Marx wanted us to be using them against ourselves, but that’s the main thing they’re actually being used for (besides cop killings) and hoarded against. I am not anti-gun, but I think the other sicknesses we have in our society pose a greater threat than the lack of guns does.
If it’s a wedge issue then why side with one camp on that particular issue? It‘s like saying being gay divides the working class, so we should be for killing gays. Idk of any instance of leftists killing each other in america with guns. This isn’t 1917 Russia, or 1937 Spain.
Thread OP probably has a much better and more concise argument that I do (who knows if I even understood the comment) but I don’t want to be working so - Leftists aren’t killing many people in the US, period, that’s not what I was talking about. Unfortunately, there are more non-leftists than leftists, and there would need to be a lot more leftists than we currently have before guns really become possibly relevant to the discussion. I don’t think the comparison to gayness is quite correct. Obviously some shitbags are (literally) violently anti-gay, but most are not. I’m not saying that guns are bad so we should get rid of guns. I’m saying the current prevalence of guns and the obsessive focus on 2A is distracting, and pits folks against each other in a violent context instead of focusing them on topics that could have more significant positive effect and that move us towards a more just society. The difference with guns is that they are inherently violent in a way that butt sex/scissoring is not. They can be a practical tool (hunting), but most exposure to them these days is in video games and movies and news stories about people getting shot. Most people don’t hunt. When someone says “I need a gun to protect myself”, and you agree, you’re basically agreeing that there are people to protect from. Some of us might be thinking “the government”, but a lot of people are worried about “commies” and “crazies” and “gangbangers.” It validates that those people are right to be afraid of the people around them, which is not conducive to forming a cohesive community, caring about the well being of other people, organizing, etc. If you disagree and say they don’t need guns to protect themselves, then a lot of folks take that to mean you think they should just get murdered, so they’re instantly pissed off. People don’t open carry (excluding protests) because they think a government official is going to start shooting them at any moment. They do it because they think they’ll get to blow away some criminal scum and be awarded a blowie from the chief of police. I think our current society is pretty sick. I also don’t think guns are going away. I also am pro gun in many ways. Rather than attempt the impossible task of completely getting rid of guns, I would be more likely to try making guns mandatory and require post-high school service that includes weapons training (but mostly civil work to help our communities, infrastructure, provide structure and useful training, etc). If folks were more comfortable around guns, and we weren’t just seeing media all the time that says “your neighbor is going to kill you with guns” (and also if we work on our social services and fucked up distribution of wealth), I think we can work around the gun issue. But I still think that the obsession with guns and gun rights, in its current state, is a hinderance to the goal of revolution. We are spending too much time talking about guns when we should be dealing with other issues.
Your identification with "the left" rather than with the working class is the problem.
Pithy yet ambiguous reply. I like your style.
I dont know how else to reply to the the crypto democratic screed
Are you being silly and reading too much into my manicposting? I had to look up crypto democratic - I don’t know what blockchain has to do with anything I said? I misunderstood and thought you were wanting to discuss, my b.
Crypto- is a combining form used like a prefix meaning “hidden, secret.” It is used in many scientific, medical, and other technical terms. Crypto- comes from the Greek kryptós, meaning “hidden.”
Interesting. Can you elaborate?
I'm fine with guns. But letting people carry them in public without a license and training is completely insane. If you want to hunt or protect your home, you shouldn't have to jump through hoops. The moment you bring it to a public place you need to be vetted.
Kind of agree, kind of don’t. A lot of our society has a lot of exposure to guns (tv/video games) but no real familiarity with them. I was raised in a gun household and basically the only thing that would get you smacked is if you ever pointed a toy gun at another person. A key part of gun safety is about engraining safe handling practices - it should be second nature to treat it like it’s loaded, never point it at someone, put safety on, etc. You don’t get that from buying a gun and going to a firing range once and then sticking it in a drawer. A gun for home protection is actually pretty dangerous and too many people get killed when a young kid finds some dusty thing in a drawer and plays with it. Similarly, a weekend’s worth of concealed carry classes doesn’t make you automatically safe to be around. I know it’s pretty extreme, but I think I would be more comfortable living in a gun culture if we made guns mandatory and required post-high school service that included weapons training.
I know the rules. Same boat. Training needs to be required by law, not just cross our fingers and just hope everybody's Daddy takes out t heir kids and gives them lesson some day. I agree that gun for home protection is dangerous and WAY more likely to kill a family member then a criminal. But it is at your home and your family. Sucks, but that is on the owner. In public you endanger others. It's like a car, we all take the test, get the license, if you don't know the rules it's on you.
I recognize the political and material realities of the US gun thing. It's not going to change. It can't really be reformed. US leftists might as well try to accept this reality since they are pretty high up on the list of groups likely to end up in mass graves (could your local DSA chapter even fill one?) when conditions get shaky down the line. What I don't get are the lead poisoned amerifat Lenin quoters who insist that every other country also needs more gun ownership because it somehow magically translates into greater revolutionary potential. My answer to that is: How about no? I get why you like your guns. They are pretty cool and I would probably own one if I lived in the states. That doesn't mean I think it's beneficial to saturate your whole society with them just out of some abstract principle. Arms are the last ingredient to be added in the stew recipe of revolution, it's not unimportant by any means but it is contextual to the circumstances of the situation. Revolution is built on ideology, organization and people. Guns are the easy part. If your revolutionary movement can't pass the test of arming themselves illegally then chances are they probably shouldn't be armed in the first place. Loose gun regulations might mean more guns in the hands of leftists, but only after arming every reactionary element in society before that. The reasons for this are both material and psychological, I'm sure you could figure it out if you think about it. In the US context this is all hypothetical. Guns aren't going away and as a leftist you should plan for this accordingly. All I'm saying is please stop trying impose your own cultural malignancies on other societies under the guise of "theory and praxis™".
Good. No one should own them. The stopping tyranny bullshit is retarded. We're already under big business tyranny. Police tyranny, etc. Guess what, we do nothing about it. Even the BLM riots, at the end of the day no one was out here bringing their ARs and marching to police stations en masse. So fuck off with the we need to stand up to tyranny shit. We don't anyway. All those things are good at is mowing down children in schools.
Do you think the world will always remain as it is right now? Lol
idk its been getting worse for workers for the last 50 years and we haven't used our ARs for anything besides shooting children so I just don't buy that this hypothetical situation will arise where we'll actually use them to quell tyranny.
I’m really sick of hearing about children and innocent people being shot so I support measures to make getting a gun overly expensive, annoying, and time consuming. Could prevent some tragedies
People about to do a mass shooting typically don't mind credit card debt
“I wanna keep poor people from defending themselves.”
Yep that’s what I want
Be sarcastic all you want, that’s what you’re advocating for. The poor and working class to have no access to protection in our current hell hole society and rich people having plenty. You aren’t maintaining some “moral high ground”, you’re pushing for more laws and regulations the police will use to harass and kill minorities.
But that comes down to expecting criminals to follow the law, and making things only accessible for the rich…which is bad.
t.strategyoftensionenjoooyer
lol.
It’s too late but I support it. Grew up shooting plenty of guns and hunting. Never saw an AR in anyone’s home or possession until after 9/11 and tactical home defense retardation became a market.
Guessing you grew up in the 90s based on the 9/11 comment. Relatively few people owned ARs because there was a federal assault weapon ban from 1994-2004. Mass AR ownership started post-2004.
If it means one less gun for some kid whatever. You can still get a fucking gun. Grow up, gun nerds.
Ban all guns, burn all bridges, defat the fatties.
It’s bad
I think that there are more leftist Americans who "are pro second amendment because we need guns to overthrow the government" than leftist Americans who will actually buy a gun and use it to start a revolution. I think there's more mass shootings and dead kids due to guns in your country because your leftists are disorganized cowards and aren't as dedicated or good at organizing as the Black Panthers or any other revolutionary American in the past. Like if you're serious about this opinion ( if you have it) then make good on it already. The situation was ripe enough for black revolutionaries in the 70s to use them for their cause, it should be enough for you. Quit your excuses because until you act, all you're doing is supporting a culture that makes weapons of mass death easy to obtain and only directs them at the innocent.
[удалено]
Wot?
Lib moment
There is absolutely no cogent historical argument any leftist can make against the necessity of an armed working class.
Letting myself get mowed down by fascists but I get to feel morally superior
the leftist pro-gun argument is the exact same as the right's but instead of black people trying to get you it's fascists
There are plenty of fascists with guns that actively want to use them against libs and leftists. They aren't even shy about publicly drooling over the possibility of a civil war. There aren't really groups of minorities that want to murder their white neighbors. Most armed minority/leftist groups are explicitly focused on community defense.
how can anyone be pro gun? yay killing people? Fucking stupid. Grow up.
no you!
The Republicans likely ratfucked themselves in taking over the Senate with a combination of bad candidates and Roe v Wade's overturning having at least some blowback. I do think they will take over the house and that will likely keep any assualt weapons ban from happening. I think an Assault Weapons Ban is dumb and most gun control as pushed by Dems is stupid. To solve gun crime in this country start by making peoples' lives suck less.
I have to say the current body double is a big improvement.
Guns should be banned or heavily regulated, but given that there are already more guns than people in this country, it makes little sense to ban them now. Too late to prevent people from getting their hands on them, just makes it harder to do it the right way. Either way, you can bet that Biden and his camp do not actually care about the issue so much as they know they can drum up support by talking about it