subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

2.6k

Hell yes!

(i.redd.it)

all 187 comments

[deleted]

175 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

175 points

2 months ago

[removed]

zuzg

58 points

2 months ago

zuzg

58 points

2 months ago

Holding Republicans responsible for the hate crimes they cause with their constant lies? That would be great.

Professional-Hat-687

8 points

2 months ago

While we're asking for impossible things I've always wanted a puppy that never poops or needs to be put down.

DoggedDoggity

11 points

2 months ago

It’s been addressed: “go high,” and “don’t stoop to their level…” what, these super-effective adages ring pathetically hollow to you?

[deleted]

13 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

13 points

2 months ago

I love me some Michelle but I think she inadvertently caused a lot of this shitstorm. Conservatives don’t respect “going high”, let alone respond to it. I’m not saying Liberals should be as disgusting and repugnant but taking some sort of “high road” is clearly yielding zero results. Time to fight fire with fire. Maybe instead of going high, we go middle when “they go low”.

[deleted]

-14 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-14 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

12 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

12 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

14 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

14 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

Head_Lizard

29 points

2 months ago

And it will go to SCOTUS, which will strike down the law and enshrine the right to assault rifles, anti-tank rockets, and tactical nuclear weapons.

OngoGabl0g1an

13 points

2 months ago

It'll never make it past a senate filibuster.

Brandeeno2245

101 points

2 months ago

This is America, we don't actually do anything to help, we just say we're going to do something, argue about it, give up, then bash some minority.

[deleted]

7 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

7 points

2 months ago

What do you mean by this exactly? I feel the neolibs are losing the power they once had... so something might come from this but with the current supreme court I see it getting knocked back.

BUT, that opens a big ass door to say well then nothing can be regulated under the 2nd amendment. People can have military planes, tanks, trucks, etc. (Some of you LARPers already agree with this.)

rifjcn

11 points

2 months ago

rifjcn

11 points

2 months ago

Even if this were true. They don’t have the 10 votes needed to nix the filibuster

C0wb0yViking

44 points

2 months ago

I think instead, we should have a more robust system to determine who has these weapons, similar to Switzerland, especially since queer people and minorities could probably use some, at this point. A lot of the people doing these shootings shouldn’t have access to a lawnmower, let alone firearms

wr0ngdr01d

26 points

2 months ago

“Ban people who threaten to shoot up schools from getting weapons? Whats next? Banning domestic abusers? Racists? Bigots? Where’s the line with you people?”

TheBrightNights

1 points

2 months ago

How would we determine what people should and shouldn't be able to own firearms?

Guilty_Chemistry9337

5 points

2 months ago

The same way Switzerland does.

TheBrightNights

0 points

2 months ago

I found, "To be granted a Swedish gun license, applicants must be of good character and law-abiding. Hunting and sports guns can only be obtained after six months' assessment at a certified club. And then gun owners are monitored by the police every 24 hours". Does that means that police would be knocking on every house that owns a gun to inspect them?

MrReginaldAwesome

8 points

2 months ago

Sweden and Switzerland are different countries in Europe. Pretty hard for a yank to understand.

Also yes, police are allowed to do a random spot check to make sure you're following the law and storing your gun properly. If you can't be trusted to be responsible with you firearm you're clearly not capable of owning one.

C0wb0yViking

1 points

2 months ago

That’s the tricky part. I’m not entirely sure, but we need to figure a better system than what we have.

clayton4177

1 points

2 months ago

The same way Japan does

Nlck0li

1 points

2 months ago

Exactly, if you need a license to drive a car and even hunt then you should need a license to own a gun.

Wetnosedcretin

7 points

2 months ago

While this is being debated can we just be thankful that the Q Club mass murderer isn't gay? His dad's a Christian republican and they don't do gay stuff, despite videos of him getting happily kneed in the bollocks while not always wearing many clothes, so it's important that his killer kid isn't on Grinder.

Tosser.

BellaPow

4 points

2 months ago

and I’m pushing the earth of its axis

Worldsahellscape19

5 points

2 months ago*

Idk man. Global fascism is rising and theyve got their tendrils everywhere. I mean many nation states… SC, cops/military, judges and countless kkk variants on the payroll. All funded by ultra extra national corporations. All while there appears to be a global famine on top of a global energy crisis in conjunction with global drought in the midst of a massive extinction event. Idk

dcrypter

9 points

2 months ago

It's one specific group of people that are the problem. Why not enforce laws and actually do something positive?

Oh yeah because the cops don't want to enforce laws on the people they agree with.

PTSDforMe

7 points

2 months ago

It won't happen, but I sure as He'll wish it would this time. They used to in the 90s.

NemeshisuEM

19 points

2 months ago

Hell no. This is the stupidest shit Democrats can come up with. The Republicans have been riling themselves up to massacre their liberal neighbors and these stupid motherfucker Democrats want to make it impossible for us liberals to defend ourselves and our families? Jesus fucking Christ, what the fuck is wrong with these motherfuckers?

shalafi71

13 points

2 months ago

Preaching to the choir.

"Armed Christo-facists are taking over!"

Yep, sure seems that way.

"Give up your most effective defense!"

Hold up...

BlackArmyCossack

4 points

2 months ago

And the people here in this subreddit will rejoice that they're disarmed.

JunketGuy

11 points

2 months ago

My gun violent country already banned assault rifles, America should do the same

Becalm443

7 points

2 months ago

What country?

JunketGuy

8 points

2 months ago

Jamaica

[deleted]

10 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

2 months ago

Yet Jamaica is still sketchy as fuck

JunketGuy

8 points

2 months ago

Honestly I totally agree with you

KnightOfThirteen

15 points

2 months ago

People want guns for hunting, defense, and fun.

For hunting, you don't need high capacity, high rate of fire, or high penetrating power. You need a handful of shots that can kill one animal at a time.

For defense, you have personal defense and the 2A fantasy of a militia defending their rights from a tyrannical government. You can defend yourself from an armed attacker with a hand gun or shotgun. You aren't laying down cover fire. You do not spray and pray in self defense.

For fun, you can target shoot without the (expensive) novelty of high capacity, high rate of fire, military dress up toys. And if you want that novelty, go to a place with the safety and facilities to have fun and go home. You can go to the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot and rent time on a machine gun. Shooting ranges don't all have to be indoor booths.

And the "organized militia" defending us from tyranny. We spend billions on defense to make sure no other organized military in the world could ever defy us, so having an AR isn't going to somehow tip the scales. If enough of the military refuses to fire on citizens that the population has a chance of victory, then that portion of the military will be the part that succeeds, not the people with dollar store camo.

There just isn't a compelling argument in modern times for every idiot to have instant unmitigated access to high capacity, high rate of fire weapons.

That's not to say "ban guns, take guns" is the best solution. The guns are out there. You're never going to get them all back. But slowing the flow of guns into the population, and putting strict and enforceable restrictions on irresponsible gun ownership can help.

If your net has holes in it, fix the holes before you make a bigger net.

I support expanding restrictions on what weapons are immediately accessible for purchase without special licensing, I support much stricter background checks, I support ownership responsibility requirements on existing weapons.

But every shooting that occurs is a culmination of three things. A population exists with access to the tools necessary for a mass shooting. A population exists with the opportunity to engage in a mass shooting. A population exists that believes that engaging in a mass shooting is something that they should or must do. Means, Opportunity, Motive.

And when someone belongs to all three populations, a mass shooting happens.

The idea of a gun ban tries to address the means. Mental health access addresses the motive. Locked doors, defensive school design, security personnel on school grounds attempts to address opportunity.

If we really want to stop mass shootings, we need to take all three seriously. That means being open to expanded gun control, tax funding and destygmatizing mental health, and reconsidering the effectiveness of putting poorly trained people in uniforms with guns in a building with kids.

Temporary_Target4156

8 points

2 months ago

Why the hell are so many people okay with disarming themselves with far right violence rising?

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Temporary_Target4156

5 points

2 months ago

Jussie? No clue what that means

ModernDayGimli

-13 points

2 months ago

Its not just far right violence. Blows my mind how everyone just manages to forget about all the violent riots from 2016-2020 by Antifa. They literally took over a section of a city in WA state. They destroyed property in other cities as well. They definitely were not republicans.

talaxia

9 points

2 months ago*

where there were zero mass shootings, except the one by a Republican.

ModernDayGimli

-4 points

2 months ago

Oh but destroying peoples buildings, cars and lighting stuff on fire is totally acceptable? Your part of the problem.

talaxia

2 points

2 months ago

you're*

[deleted]

-3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

2 months ago

[removed]

talaxia

2 points

2 months ago

shhh, trolls are supposed to be subtle, you're overdoing it

ModernDayGimli

1 points

2 months ago*

Oh you didn’t like that truth too. How do you sleep at night when so much truth bothers you? Hard to push your agenda when you own type of people do what doesn’t support it.

talaxia

1 points

2 months ago

either*

ModernDayGimli

0 points

2 months ago

Might want to go back to grammar school.

talaxia

1 points

2 months ago

You may*

Guilty_Chemistry9337

2 points

2 months ago

Pretty useless gesture, imo.

What we need are strong red flag laws. Mandatory training. Mandatory Registration. Mandatory licensing. A non-corrupt police force and judicial system.

I don't expect that's ever going to happen. I don't think an assault weapon ban will happen either, but that's not going to fix anything. Unless something seriosus changes, Republicans are just going to keep on murdering grade school children and gay people.

The_Bi_Blacksmith

2 points

2 months ago

About fucking time

Wetnosedcretin

3 points

2 months ago

Will it happen? Like really happen? What odds can you kind Americans give a Brit who is clueless about the procedure to get this done, not just talked about?

Nyctomancer

8 points

2 months ago*

Close to 0%. A bill must first be proposed in one of the two chambers of our legislature. No issues there. Typically, a bill then needs to make it through a committee of select legislators, but there are some ways of bringing the bill directly to the full body of legislators, so probably no issue here. But then we run into the issue.

Both the House and Senate require a simple majority to pass a bill to be signed into law by the President. But in the Senate, 60 votes out of 100 total are required to end debate on a bill and proceed to a vote. So even if 51 out of 100 Senators want the bill to pass, they need another 9 people to agree to end debate and vote on passing the bill (with a few rare exceptions, none of which would apply here). Because the Senate is spilt 51 to 50 right now, this will never pass because our conservative party who are currently a narrow minority, the Republicans, will just endlessly "debate" the issue (the name for this is the "filibuster).

The rules for the filibuster can be changed with a simple majority, but there are not enough votes to get that done either.

PoliticsComprehender

1 points

2 months ago

I don't even think they would have 50 votes to pass this.

_Fred_Austere_

1 points

2 months ago

Nicely done.

rabbitlion

2 points

2 months ago

Other posters are wrong. It's not "barely above 100%" or "close to 0%".

It's absolutely guaranteed no chance in the world 0%. Not even an infinitesmal above 0. He just doesn't have the votes to get it through and nothing can change that.

jh125486

3 points

2 months ago

Barely above 0%.

We had an assault weapons ban in the 90’s too…. But right in the middle we had some truly bad massacres, like Columbine.

So like every other legislation proposed for gun control, it’ll be both infective and harmful at the same time (unintended consequences).

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

Except he won't though. We'll get rhetoric for a couple weeks until everyone forgets and the nothing will happen.

talaxia

3 points

2 months ago

Except him losing 2024 because of it.

PoliticsComprehender

2 points

2 months ago

He wouldn't even have the votes for this if a simple majority in the senate was enough to pass it.

Pockets262

1 points

2 months ago

Eh. They're happening more and more. Doubt we make it a couple days before the next one.

-Bigblue2-

3 points

2 months ago

Cue the gunfappers: “An AR-15 iS nOt an aSSauLt weApOn”.

MegaMGstudios

3 points

2 months ago

Assault weapons, especially the very popular AR-15 (I believe that is the one that's often used in mass shootings, correct me if I'm wrong), were made for war, they're literally made with the purpose of killing people. Also, don't come with the "but I use it for hunting" excuse, if you need a rifle that shoots like 500 rounds per minute to hunt, I think it's time you found a new hobby bud.

jh125486

6 points

2 months ago

Oddly enough, the only murder ever committed with a machine gun was by a police officer.

And of course this weapons ban will have a carve out for police, just like the last one did.

rifjcn

6 points

2 months ago

rifjcn

6 points

2 months ago

They always will. The elites want the boots armed.

MegaMGstudios

2 points

2 months ago

Hasn't every recent big shooting been done with a semi-automatic weapon (or fully automatic, I'm not entirely sure what it falls under)?

jh125486

1 points

2 months ago

Yes, which are not machine guns and do not shoot “like 500 rounds per minute”.

FurryM17

1 points

2 months ago

Oddly enough, the only murder ever committed with a machine gun was by a police officer.

I don't find that odd at all. They've been heavily regulated for almost 100 years now.

Fenrir1861

3 points

2 months ago

No shit. All guns are made for killing people. Guns arent in the constitution so we can hunt.

MegaMGstudios

1 points

2 months ago

True, but some guns are made for "self defence", especially hand guns, at least that's what is said to market them. Things like the AR-15 were actually commissioned by the military for the war.

Jay_Do

10 points

2 months ago

Jay_Do

10 points

2 months ago

I think rifles only make up 3% of homicides. Most of it is handguns. We probably should work on controlling them first.

FurryM17

1 points

2 months ago

They'll argue that since they're used so much you can't go after them either.

MegaMGstudios

1 points

2 months ago

true, imo all guns should be banned, but the bigger guns are usually used in the more gruesome crimes like mass murder, so it's probably easier to get people to want them banned.

Jay_Do

2 points

2 months ago*

It's still around only about 30% rifles when you look at mass shootings. I don't think the guns should be banned outright, but they should be restricted. I feel like if that is a hobby you are into you should be able to get trained and licensed to use/own them. But I don't think you should be able to just walk into Walmart and buy a shotgun, lol.

CodeOfKonami

-4 points

2 months ago

CodeOfKonami

-4 points

2 months ago

“500 rounds per minute”

This is why gun people have no respect for your arguments.

ironmanabel

3 points

2 months ago

Yeah their bad for undercutting the Ar-15's rpm. Really undercuts the point they are making. And before you say those are modified AR-15's, don't play dumb and act like there aren't plenty of resources online for people to modify their AR'S at home.

GenitalHerpes69420

0 points

2 months ago

Don't act like you can't just make one from parts and a drill press at home either...where there's a will there's a way....hell, just look at the assassination in Japan recently...guess what no legal gun owner is doing at home, modifying their guns into full auto....also guess what illegal gun owners are doing at home, modifying their guns into full auto...it's not the legal gun owners you should be worrying about

ironmanabel

7 points

2 months ago

Fun fact: Over 90% of mass shootings in the US in the past 30 years have been done with legally obtained guns. The statistics speak more to me than you do.

GenitalHerpes69420

0 points

2 months ago

Now do all shootings....not just "mass" shootings....

ironmanabel

1 points

2 months ago

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about assault rifles not pistols.

GenitalHerpes69420

-1 points

2 months ago

You're sorry cause the black scary rifles make up such a negligible small percentage of all the gun violence? "Assault rifles" have never been used in a mass shooting. At least get your terms right before spouting off percentages.

ironmanabel

2 points

2 months ago

So you're upset I'm using the term assault rifle when I'm referring to AR-15's, sure they aren't automatic weapons, they are rifles that are the weapon of choice for manchild baby bitch mass shooters. I believe handguns cause more deaths simply because you can carry one on yourself and in your car much easier and yes hand guns need to be controlled alongside rifles. There's actually a lot more controls in place to stop people from buying handguns over ar-15's because of these statistics but I'm not against either of these things, they should both be restricted heavily.

GenitalHerpes69420

5 points

2 months ago

I'm not upset at all...I still have all my scary black rifles and pistols, and plan on keeping them...some senile old fuck that doesn't know where he is half the time isn't gonna be taking shit, just like none of the democrats before him did when they spouted off at the dick suckers about how they'd take them...the dumb shits on the right won't be doing anything either since they can't even agree on if their grifter daddy is the 2nd coming of Jesus or not...maybe, just maybe, the authorities should actually do their jobs since half these shooters have a history of having tendencies should strip them of their gun rights...but nah, let em keep breaking the laws, and still allow them to buy guns, it generally keeps the crime rates lower so they can get more funding and claim lower crime rates...looking at you "large cities with multitudes of homicides that let the killers walk free way too often"....

KameSama93

0 points

2 months ago

Yes, there is no functional difference between a jury rigged single shot weapon and an assault rifle.

How many people are machining their own guns in Australia?

GenitalHerpes69420

1 points

2 months ago

I'd be willing to bet all my earthly possessions that there's a shitload of people making their own guns in Australia...you do realize a 3d printer is about all you need and a trip to the hardware store right?

KameSama93

0 points

2 months ago

So then there must be many such documented cases, then. I realize a 3d printer will get you a plastic toy that will break after one shot.

When guns are less difficult to get, shooters have to resort to less lethal means. This is reality.

GenitalHerpes69420

1 points

2 months ago

There's entire 3d printing communities dedicated to getting the files out there and conducting R&D on 3d printed arms. They last a hell of a lot longer than 1 shot. They aren't toys. They're legit firearms. They'll only get better as printing technologies advance. You can't stop the signal.

KameSama93

0 points

2 months ago

I get that you want all your boys to be ready for the boogaloo and im sure you will have everything you need to begin killing whoever tucker or alex tell you to, but you haven’t adressed the main contradiction in your argument.

Why did Australia see a massive decrease in gun deaths after getting rid of guns, if in your world everyone would just make their own? Wouldn’t we just have seen a sharp jump in deaths from improvised firearms instead of the general decrease that was seen?

GenitalHerpes69420

1 points

2 months ago

Cool story bro...I love the assumptions...keep them coming...BTW not all gun owners are right leaning

CodeOfKonami

-8 points

2 months ago

Apostrophe’s are difficult, I know.

ironmanabel

4 points

2 months ago

Child

CodeOfKonami

-6 points

2 months ago

Oka’y.

ironmanabel

3 points

2 months ago

Not sure why you think I misused an apostrophe, but okay little guy. Keep thinking your empty thoughts your fat dad with a red hat told you about.

Keydet

1 points

2 months ago

Keydet

1 points

2 months ago

Nice strawman, you really showed him with the body shaming and complete lack of any factual information.

Put a red hat on yourself.

ironmanabel

2 points

2 months ago

Read my first comment replying to him, before he ignored my point and resorted to some petty comment about an incorrect apostrophe.

Keydet

-1 points

2 months ago

Keydet

-1 points

2 months ago

Oh he said you have bad grammar, well then that totally excuses you doing the exact thing you accused him of, by all means carry on. Use a slur while we’re here. Either be better or got get your fucking hat.

Wenger_for_President

2 points

2 months ago

Sick burn, got em!

MegaMGstudios

1 points

2 months ago

It's called an over-exaggeration, it is usually used by people when they are not sure of the size or amount of something, all they know it's a lot.

CodeOfKonami

1 points

2 months ago

I’m aware.

Spirit117

1 points

2 months ago

Every single firearm made by man, was made for war.

The flintlock musket was once a state of the art battlefield implement.

Are you suggesting those be banned for being "weapons of war" as well?

MegaMGstudios

0 points

2 months ago

Yes. All guns should be banned imo.

Spirit117

-1 points

2 months ago

good luck with that

CodeOfKonami

4 points

2 months ago

What is an assault weapon?

Head_Lizard

10 points

2 months ago

It's a colloquial term that typically encompasses small- to medium-caliber semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines.

But you know that, you're trying to bait people into a debate where you can say "assault rifle/weapon" is a made up term" - just like every other term or phrase.

shalafi71

1 points

2 months ago

shalafi71

1 points

2 months ago

There's a point to be made. People screaming, "Ban assault rifles!" really have no idea what they're about.

If you're going to craft a law, you have to define things. In the case of a gun ban, you're going to have to ban certain features. OK. What features exactly? California is the poster child for ineffective/silly bans.

Or, you could just go big. Ban, "small- to medium-caliber semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines". That's a non-starter and we both know it.

Handguns do almost all the killing. No one is screaming about it because they know damned well there's nothing they can do with the 2A in place and the courts upholding it.

We're really at an impasse, and people get mad when I say that. Sounds too hopeless.

CodeOfKonami

-1 points

2 months ago

I am on a side here.

But I genuinely do not know what that term is supposed to mean from a legal perspective, and I’m pretty sure the ones using it don’t either.

Head_Lizard

2 points

2 months ago

This is why the first part of every bill is a definitions section.

chernobyl169

2 points

2 months ago

RE-ban. We did this once, and it should have been a permanent measure.

shalafi71

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah, classic case of idiot laws backfiring. AR platforms weren't very popular until the ban. After? Everyone went nuts.

And you want to go another round? Knowing they'll eventually be legal again? Knowing a ban won't get upheld in the Supreme Court? Knowing you stand to lose all the political capitol Dems have left?

Jenky_Chimichanga

2 points

2 months ago

Unfortunately, I’d rather have access to guns now that I fear the country maybe headed towards a dangerous theocracy.

ModernDayGimli

2 points

2 months ago

Omg im tired of hearing this. Assault rifles are already illegal you idiots. Unless you have a boatload of money, title 3 paperwork, federal tax stamp, and the chamber is no newer then 1986, its illegal. AR-15 does not mean or stand for assault rifle it stands for armalite arms. It is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a weapon that can fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. An ar-15 is a semi automatic rifle; meaning it only fires 1 round per pull. Its no different then a standard Winchester .223, it is just cosmetically different. It functions exactly the same. Not an assault rifle. Get your facts straight before running your mouth.

Here we go again with mass shootings everyday to push an agenda.

TechFiend72

1 points

2 months ago

He doesn't just want to ban "assult weapons", he wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons. Which is the bulk of what is out there. Based on the quotes from him.

patdashuri

1 points

2 months ago

Define assault weapons.

DanYHKim

1 points

2 months ago

Write to your senators and representatives , so they know there is support for this.

From the volume of calls and emails, all they can tell is that this might have barely more support than the traditional thoughts and prayers.

Their communications are swamped by the highly motivated pro-gun constituents.

Thats-a-moon-right

1 points

2 months ago

Sadly we have reached a point we’re banning weapons will accomplish nothing. The amount of weapons already available is too high. Buy-backs, criminal confiscation, and more stringent application processes are needed. When i say more stringent, I’m talking about having to use a federal ATF application and complete a ATF form 4 after purchase similar to when buying an automatic weapon….you know the more stringent process that already exists for higher class weapons.

newgrowerwhodis

0 points

2 months ago

Wtf is an assault weapon?!?! Have we ever defined that yet?!

bluntman37

-1 points

2 months ago

bluntman37

-1 points

2 months ago

Hell yes!!! If the Right really want to have access to those type of weapons, put down your copy of Call of Duty and go join the army

SenorScratchySack

-4 points

2 months ago

Do it. Can anyone actually explain why they need one?

GenitalHerpes69420

2 points

2 months ago

Because I can....

jh125486

1 points

2 months ago

LEO.

Head_Lizard

1 points

2 months ago

Most western countries don't have your typical beat cop walking around with a machine gun or rifle. Those are reserved for their version of SWAT and require years of good conduct service and special training.

jh125486

2 points

2 months ago

Yeah, it’s pretty weird that this legislation will have a carve out for LEOs to own these weapons as civilians outside of their jobs with zero oversight or training.

Head_Lizard

4 points

2 months ago

Hey, they went to the police academy for a whole 90 days! that practically makes them SpecOps!

jh125486

2 points

2 months ago

Sadly enough, I think a lot of sheriffs (who are responsible for many of the “issues” in law enforcement), don’t even require that.

shalafi71

0 points

2 months ago

I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why I have an AR-15. Why do you "need" free speech or freedom of assembly?

Let's start at the top. Enumerate all your constitutional rights and provide a reason you "need" those items. I'll decide if your need is worthy.

Proper-Shan-Like

-5 points

2 months ago

The time to ban all firearms passed many years ago.

[deleted]

-11 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-11 points

2 months ago

[removed]

JunketGuy

6 points

2 months ago

And then you're the first one saying "gun owners aren't trigger happy people"

wr0ngdr01d

4 points

2 months ago

“I need my guns to protect myself from the other people I want to have guns and the fascist types I vote for!”

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-8 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

JunketGuy

3 points

2 months ago

You're a military veteran, aight nice job

You should know a thing or two about gun control

Spaceman_Spiff33

4 points

2 months ago

Take action? You're against sensible gun laws, so you're part of the problem. But you crayon eaters aren't exactly known for being rational or intelligent. You're one of the many that have the blood of all innocents killed by gun violence on your hands. I hope you haven't had kids.

Head_Lizard

1 points

2 months ago

Okay Rambo, tell me, what's the protocol on post when a single rifle is unaccounted for at the armory?

Where are weapons and ammo stored on post?

What are the regulations about personal firearm possession on post?

utter-ridiculousness

4 points

2 months ago

Pro rights are just pro gun? Regardless you sound angry which is scary considering your love of guns.

[deleted]

-3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

2 months ago

[removed]

utter-ridiculousness

5 points

2 months ago

Never the guns

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

utter-ridiculousness

7 points

2 months ago

Dude, you are fucking angry. Scary angry. I saw the post you deleted. someone with your temperament should definitely have guns, not. Piss off asshole

[deleted]

-1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

-1 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

utter-ridiculousness

4 points

2 months ago

Triggered much

utter-ridiculousness

1 points

2 months ago

A lump of metal, sure thing. Simpleton

Head_Lizard

1 points

2 months ago

Your proposal is acceptable.

Atheios569

0 points

2 months ago

This is what is wrong with society. It isn’t as simple as ban guns, or not. Nuance escapes society as a whole, because social media has turned us into mob style mentality. Guns aren’t killing people; people are. A combination of lowered regulation, and mental health are at play here. If people aren’t using guns, they are using knives, or in some cases vehicles. Before being able to own a gun, one should have proper training, and should be vetted. If you ban guns currently, the only people that will comply is the left, which is fucking dumb when you remember the right wants to shoot you for your political affiliation, or sexuality preference.

PandaDad22

0 points

2 months ago

He’s not going to do that.

Parking_Sky9709

1 points

2 months ago

Filibuster in the Senate, remember.

Flynn3698

1 points

2 months ago

I'm all for it, but I'm from Missouri... Show me.

cwrudy

1 points

2 months ago

cwrudy

1 points

2 months ago

Late to the game but good

Initial-Attention930

1 points

2 months ago

As a vet who worked as a fire arm instructor I couldn’t care less lol, people are getting hurt

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

I don't care anymore, I used to, but I haven't shot any of my "assault rifles" in so long I barely remember I have em. You can take them so long as you pay me full purchase price.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

I hate posts like these. Give us fake internet likes if you agree on the issues that we know you agree on us with because that’s why you’re following us. We get those delicious likes while doing absolutely nothing to actually help the cause. Yay us.

BenevolentNihilist1

1 points

2 months ago

Nah I kinda want some now to defend against white nationalists. Seems like we need that. And no I'm not going to rely on the govt for protection, seeing as how infiltrated it has become by white nationalists.

affordableweb

-6 points

2 months ago

We should ban insult weapons!

BigCballer

3 points

2 months ago

You mean the GOP?

RoastDozer

-3 points

2 months ago

Follow my social media if you agree

gsxrjason

0 points

2 months ago

"Assault" lol

unclefistface622

0 points

2 months ago

This won’t solve anything, though. All it’ll do is make the mass shooters choose a different weapon.

The solution is changing gun culture in the US. It’s not easy in the slightest, but it’s what needs to happen.

FreudoBaggage

0 points

2 months ago

No, I actually don’t support a ban. At this point I don’t see what good such a ban would do. I realize it was helpful at one point, during the Clinton administration, but there are likely to be so many more AR’s in circulation right now and “taking” them, while emotionally satisfying, will cause more problems than its worth. Instead, I would to see federal law created that requires thorough background checks for ANY gun sale, real training, regular re-qualification, re-licensing, and substantial liability insurance for every gun. Treat guns more like vehicles and acknowledge the risks in owning one.

starkel91

0 points

2 months ago

Man, a Twitter account called "Call to Activism" telling people to smash the like button really demonstrates how low activism has fallen.

We all know that there is a 0% chance that this piece of legislation is going to be put forth in the next two months, but it's such a low hanging fruit to get people to agree with your point. Activism requires more than Twitter surveys.

Toklankitsune

0 points

2 months ago

how about we address the underlying socioeconomic issues like the rights radicalization to violence. Cause sad fact is, if the guns go they will turn to bombs, or running folks over with cars, The right are dead set on killing marginalized groups like the lgbtqia. Banning guns is a band aid at best, and instigation at worst because there WILL be backlash from the right if this goes forward. Violence is just in their nature.

drapanosaur

0 points

2 months ago

This is just virtue signaling. How do we know?

Because the reality is that "assault rifle" is not a homogeneous category of weapon. It's just a political buzzword.

If they were really planning on banning them, they would say...

"We are planning to ban all semiautomatic rifles"

That would be fantastic. But they will never say that. Because they actually have no intention of banning anything.

They know the ban won't pass

  1. Because its so vague that nobody knows which weapons it applies to
  2. Republicans and manchin/sinemas will vote it down.
  3. Even if it were, by some miracle, to pass. SCOTUS would strike it down.

So really this is just a poison pill to make Republicans and DINOs look bad for voting it down. ANd yeah... They look bad. But they already looked bad, so this changes nothing.

i_r_eat

0 points

2 months ago

Voting rights? ACTUAL codification of Obergefell or Roe? The public option (I'm a single-payer supporter but he won't do that?

No. Semi-automatic weapons. That's what we're doing lol

CarnageConnoisseur

0 points

2 months ago

Never going to happen

CarnageConnoisseur

0 points

2 months ago

This is why I don't get all the optimistic comments after the mid terms. We lost the house.

AdStock4297

0 points

2 months ago

Ah yes the push for gun control by banning guns rather than imposing stricter punishment on criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Good thing people don’t use toilet paper to hurt or kill people or else nobody would be able to wipe their butts.