It is interesting how many times I have been called racist. I don’t know I have ever commented on anything racial. I hold no views that are racist.
And I don’t own a gun and see no reason to. I am pretty indifferent to the 2nd Amendment in general. It isn’t an issue I am passionate about at all.
I am only critiquing the bad arguments used after every shooting. People use crises to restrict freedom even when the number of lives saved will be negligible just to make it look like something is being done. I view an assault weapons ban as a response in the same way I view restricting online poker because a kid kills himself over losing money.
Your analogy is horrific. An individual choosing to injure themself is completely different from banning something besause it allows for others to kill innocent bystanders en masse. Fucks sake. You’re the one with horrible arguments. It’s also funny that you argue so hard for and against things you “don’t care about.” Leave then.
You don’t have less freedom because you can’t have a weapon that enlisted troops would use. Do you think that normal societies that don’t fear mass shootings, don’t have metal detectors in schools and every large place, don’t have armed guards at every arena are less free for that?
Really?
Do you think New Zealand has less freedom after their ban? Do you think Australia who banned such weapons long ago and have had zero mass shootings since have less freedom, or the same freedom but less dead sons and daughters? I’d worry more about the freedom of people to continue being alive in this world rather than thinking you don’t have “freedom” because you can only buy a hunting rifle and not a mass killing machine. Under this asinine argument you don’t have freedom because you can’t own a fucking tank.
Yes. That’s exactly what gun nutters think. Being free means you can shoot guns. It’s all they care about. They are delusional lunatics and should be treated as such. Fuck anyone that cares about their AR15 more than lives dying.
Can you quote the person here who made the argument the
main way to fight gun violence is banning only assault style rifles because as far as i can tell you are here critiquing an argument you made up for everyone.
What about MY freedom? My freedom to go to the mall or the movies or shopping without wondering if today is the day I’m going to get shot by one of these assholes?
What about my nephew’s freedom to go to school without fear and metal detectors and searches?
What about my niece’s freedom to go to her dance recitals without wondering if some dickhead is gonna decide that today would be a nice day to unload a clip or two into some little girls?
I would be in favor of a military coup of a government that bans all guns. A gun ban is why the NRA is probably right to not give an inch, even on reasonable concessions. Once you stick the camel’s nose under the tent, it won’t end with people like you.
All rights flow from self ownership. You have the right to to life and to be free from aggression. A gun is a way to deter aggression. That isn’t a right wing position. That is the basic moral position.
85% of the arguments I see on Twitter and political commentators are about an assault weapons ban and they happen after every public shooting. It was the first response in New Zealand. Piers Morgan had a TV show on CNN where every night for months talked about banning assault weapons.
Seems reasonable for me to focus on that because it is both common and low hanging fruit for me to ridicule.
Yes… Because you use weapons designed for killing humans… I’m from the UK and that’s the way most here see it, you could have decided to HUNT with bows and arrows or a crossbow.
Edit: You give profits to the gun industry who in turn fund the NRA.
Do ya US folks not understand that? That you help/give cash when you buy a weapon to the gun industry that in turn their product that YOU FUND kills American kids
Edit 2: ffs wake up, even Dodge City banned hand guns in the old West back in the day.
My preference in order: 1) light regulation with a requirement for financial audits to be submitted but no other regulation. 2) no regulation 3) heavy regulation that leads to oligopolies to the politically connected . 4) Banning poker is unconstitutional in my view. It violates the 14th Amendment. I think a similar argument should be used for poker as Roe v Wade.
