Senate Gun Control

I'd still say there is somewhere to go: restricting and then eventually banning the right to carry firearms. In effect, you take the time to make the buying and replacement of existing firearms less and less useful. It's a multigenerational effort, mind you, but eventually removes most firearms from where they can be used to kill other people.

 

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. People that live in a higher crime area or remotely might disagree with you. I think most folks own guns for hunting or sport anyways. Believe it or not there is a large sporting and hunting faction that partakes in gun ownership. Law abiding people that own guns are zero threat to you or the public. Go after the criminals. Close the loopholes. Perform the background checks you need to.

History is riddled with someone taking something or whatever else. History is written by those who won. Besides, America was discovered by Columbus. He found it, felt it was a cool place so we stayed. .

Not happening and won’t fix anything anyways. Like most gun control demands it assumes that lawbreakers will follow the law. This just in: they won’t. You can pass every feel good law you want about carrying a gun in public but if someone is hell bent on committing a shooting, your law isn’t stopping them. They aren’t going to go "awe man, I was all set to shoot people but they passed that law that says I can’t carry a weapon in public. Darn it all.". This is the problem with many of these proposals. They really do nothing.

 

No, Mike, it's the only reasonable conclusion to the statistical data available. People who disagree are those who think they're principled but are too cowardly to say they want guns because they like guns. No, they have to invent reasons, and ideals, and it's all bull ****.

The only people with a reasonable fear of home invasion etc are South Africans, and are you sure that's the future the US wants? No.

 

Theres also this thing called “law enforcement” which can extend beyond just being limited to racist cops shooting African Americans. If you applied as little as 20% of the annual budget the US spends on keeping Americans safe from overseas Islamic terrorists to actually enforcing existing gun laws in the US you would see plenty of lives saved I’m sure.

 

No, it wasn't.

 

The Nordics strike again!

 

You sure love defending the sport of shooting, despite not knowing anything about the organization or licenses for it. And you sure have a high opinion of supposed criminals, believing that they'll go into a store and attempt to buy a gun there, only to be stopped by background checks.

Your little bubble life must be pretty bizarre, where you're both so strong thanks to your gun but you also can't do anything about how crime is up, requiring heavy firepower to safely walk around. Do you think illegal immigrants are the only ones who go on shooting rampages and that's why background checks would stop them? You sound crazier all the time.

Of course what really matters is that you (and those like you) get to have your fun, and the deaths of others are a price you're happy to let them pay for your entertainment. Which is why it is pretty much hopeless in the US (even with a President who actually won the popular vote, but the American political system has too many anti-majority measures built in).

 

My, that's a flippant way to justify slavery and the massacre of the Native Americans, as well as to basically acknowledge that you agree with the standard white nationalist 'replacement theory' that Tucker Carlson recently espoused.

The only thing Columbus 'discovered' was that he was lost.

By that logic, we shouldn't have any laws, because lawbreakers aren't going to obey them.
I mean, you're just regurgitating the standard NRA arguments now. You may as well send your fee, because you've always been a de facto member.

 

You are a pos

 

Ya know, maybe people will forego most guns and guns for defense if the legal system ACTUALLY punished some of these scumbags & repeat offenders? Hows that for a fair tradeoff? Instead of toothless laws, fast parole, reduced sentences and things like getting rid of bail(which NYS did recently for many offenses) they can throw people in jail and let them it there and ponder their ways for a long time? Maybe that will deter crime? Just a thought.

Oh he sure did! . That dude rocks. Found us a great place to setup shop. Working out awesome so far.

 

... and to no one's surprise, Mike doubles down on the racism while doing a 180 on the effectiveness of laws.

 

LOL, nope. It's objectively, historically, false. No matter how many times you repeat it. You're wrong. You may think you're right, but you're still wrong.

 

Will somebody tell this pos there are Natives that post here, who are not impressed with his racist bs?

 

I mean, even if you take the Eurocentric interpretation of "discovered" (which is still wrong, but let's pretend for argument's sake), Columbus still didn't discover ****. He wasn't the first European to set foot on the Americas.

 

To an extent, I agree with the point that you’re making. Well-balanced, law-abiding citizens are less likely to commit a firearms offence than recidivist criminals are.

However, I do disagree with the notion that anyone presents zero threat where gun ownership is concerned. If you look at the perpetrators of mass shootings around the world, these people tend not to hold previous criminal convictions. Every criminal is a law-abiding citizen until they cross that line.

Unfortunately, as long as we have gun ownership, there is no way rule out the possibility of tragedies being perpetrated. Robust gun laws can certainly reduce the likelihood and scale of such tragedies, but (short of a blanket-ban), there is no way to completely remove the element of risk.

 

A blanket-ban on gun ownership doesn't remove the element of risk. It just removes the legal market and gives the illegal one 100% of what's left.

 

I still want @QUIGONMIKE to answer, if the laws should be that only 'good' people have guns, when will he turn his over to the government?


Also, it's amazing how he says guns are necessary for safety in one post, and then in the next says that most people who have guns just like it as a hobby, arguing that they are no longer about safey.

Also fascinating how he says that there's no point in having laws trying to restrict guns because people will just not follow them, yet he has been very vocal about illegal immigration and wanting laws that do something about that. Ignoring that if you do that, people will just not follow them. The argument is first "it can't stop it entirely so why bother" and then "we must try to stop it entirely"

 

Lol did @QUIGONMIKE really just say that America was discovered by Columbus? He didn’t land on any of the 50 states. The closest he ever got was Puerto Rico. Even then he still didn’t discover America. The natives did. And if we are only talking white people it was still not Columbus. It was the Vikings. Who again didn’t land at least as far as we know in what is now the 50 states. They landed in Canada. After some research I can’t seem to find out who the first European to land in America was. But I know for a fact it wasn’t Columbus. And it’s not like this even matters since you can’t ****ing discover something that has people living on it. That would be like me going to England today and saying I discovered it. There is literally no difference between Columbus discovering the Americas and me “discovering” England.

 

A Viking, who landed in Canada, is the first European who landed in America. If you meant "in the USA", though? Nobody, they didn't exist

 

It's not just mass shooters. Arguments between law abiding people can and does end with murder by firearm. People who have no prior criminal record end up shooting friends or family during heated arguments.

 

Huh. I did learn something. The first European that we know of who landed in the continental US was Juan Ponce de Leon who arrived in 1513 at least according to google. It’s possible the Vikings could have gotten as far south as Maine. But I don’t know if there is any solid proof that’s just me speculating. But again not like it matters.

When Mike means America he almost certainly means USA. Even though that doesn’t work as literally anywhere from Greenland technically to Argentina is America.

 

Well, there was this little thing called an ice age that happened about twenty thousand years ago, and voilà, America is discovered ^^
Unfortunately, they didn't keep very good records back then.