Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Im sick of seeing guns get held back by society. We need to stand up and fight for them so they can all enjoy life just as much as the rest of us do. #gunlivesmatter
That is just what the media would have you believe.
Somewhere between 40% - 50% of American households have at least one firearm, depending on which poll you choose to believe. There are somewhere around 270 million firearms that are privately owned in the U.S. We have the highest per-capita rate of gun ownership in the world, by almost double the second-place country (Serbia).
Our gun rights are Constitutionally guaranteed. Unfortunately the Constitution has not been upheld and our firearm rights are in serious jeopardy. In NY and CA especially, gun ownership has been limited. Thankfully the NRA is a very large organization with considerable political power.
roddy116idk where i live the NRA is the most googled thing, and we don't have any shootings. just bears, lots of bears.
You defiantly have shootings and people who kill themselves with guns..... that being said now that I don't live by NYC I'm looking into getting my first gun thats not a .22, talk to a gun store last week. Still shocked at how easy it was to buy a gun. Everyone on here thinks that because I want more checks, that equals to I want guns banned I don't.
I'm going to make the assumption that you live some where in the east. Any sort of gun control is pointless other than not selling to people with a history of mental health and the usual back ground checks. I own multiple Ar-15's and guess what i left a box of ammunition next to them and they didnt grow legs walk down the street and kill any one.
tripnipI'm going to make the assumption that you live some where in the east. Any sort of gun control is pointless other than not selling to people with a history of mental health and the usual back ground checks. I own multiple Ar-15's and guess what i left a box of ammunition next to them and they didnt grow legs walk down the street and kill any one.
You own MULTIPLE AR-15 machine guns?! When are you planning on shooting up your next elementary school you inbred redneck government hater?
-Is what I would say if I was some gun-fearing liberal pussy.
Dude there will never be the argument that gun's should be allowed too citizens. Humans cannot handle it. Also we cannot predict when we're going to randomly go crazy and decided to shoot someone.
FrenchFryDude there will never be the argument that gun's should be allowed too citizens. Humans cannot handle it. Also we cannot predict when we're going to randomly go crazy and decided to shoot someone.
You think cops and soldiers should have guns, right?
Getting rid of guns is a bad idea, I live in a gunless house but also background checks need to be so much stricted. Also before people say "Stricter background checks cant cover anything that dude who killed 12 guys at the navy yard was discharged after he heard his microwave talking to him. He legally obtained a gun.
Im pretty neutral on the subject. I have pretty weird political veiws. I was raised by a liberal mom, and a conservative dad. (Although we never had guns in our home). Nowadays Im more of a conservative.
nocturnalYou defiantly have shootings and people who kill themselves with guns..... that being said now that I don't live by NYC I'm looking into getting my first gun thats not a .22, talk to a gun store last week. Still shocked at how easy it was to buy a gun. Everyone on here thinks that because I want more checks, that equals to I want guns banned I don't.
If you need any advice, tips or knowledge on what your looking for a firearm hmu.
gnar_whalPease post I'm interested. People can have their own opinions
I think I will in the next few days. I need to take some pics of it first.
I own plenty of guns. My friends own plenty of guns. I shoot and practice on a regular basis. I grew up around guns and gun safety was something drilled into me from day one. If that's not the definition of a responsible gun owner, I don't know what is.
Too many unstable, distressed people see mass shootings as a good way to get back at society and to get some publicly, or to prove a point. It's sad, really. Something needs to change,I don't know what, but taking guns away from honest law abiding citizens isn't the answer.
.lenconI hate liberals for the most part. They want everyone to be able to do there own thing. And be equal. And have peace. Doesn't make sense to me.
For starters, I am not a liberal and this is not a defense of liberalism. But, I would like to know more about why you don't think humans are equal. Or why trying to achieve peace is a weird thing.
Here's moral equality in a nutshell. Human beings are all morally equal (I emphasize this to distinguish it from skillfully equal or other such notions). This is a consequence that directly follows from the concept of autonomy/free will. If I, as human, am a free being, then you are too and we cannot act in a way that limits or removes each other's freedom. To do so would be contrary to our natures and as such takes away from what it means to be human. This sets up a necessarily logical equal playing field for all humans (or any being that was rational/autonomous/free) and where our intrinsic worth (dignity) comes from. In this way, we are considered morally equal and thus should be able to do our own thing in so far as it does not conflict with another's autonomy. When someone infringes upon another's autonomy, we say it is unjust or immoral and a system of justice (should it exist) seeks to punish those who infringe upon others autonomy.
Obviously, we are not equal in terms of skill or ability, and this is not what "human equality" means. Human equality refers to our intrinsic moral worth prior to referencing what skills you possess. It's ok to be better than someone due to your abilities being better than theirs. It's not ok for one gender or race to claim moral superiority over another. Anyone who sees the two as the same is not understanding the topic.
In terms of achieving peace, I can come up with no reason as to why we should not strive to achieve it. Regardless of whether you defend your home with guns or practice complete non-violence, why would anyone not want to achieve peace? Unless you are a villain, I would imagine that you are a peaceful person until someone threatens you.
I feel as though hardcore 2nd Amendment folks forget the whole reason behind the 2nd amendment in the first place.
If you live on a Ranch in Wyoming, or are a duck hunter or some shit, then I understand your reasoning for having a gun in 2015.
...like, a hunting shotgun, or a rifle. You know, something you can't really conceal and take into public without freaking people out. Something that can't fire off a 30 round clip... Something that has practical usage where you live...
but give me one scenario where you really think that YOU using a concealable semi-automatic handgun makes sense?
Are you in a gang? Are you a fugitive? Are you drug dealer or producer? Are you Bruce Willis' character in like 90% of his movies? Are you in an actual wartime scenario? Are you robbing a bank? Are you Arnold Schwartzeneggar in like 90% of HIS movies? Do you constantly find yourself in a Mexican standoff?
I've lived in cities. I've worked on farms. I've lived in big towns and small ones... I can't see one good reason why I would ever need to carry a pistol with 10 rounds of ammunition around... A shotgun or a rifle if I'm in a place where hungry bears or ravenous wolverines or killer horses are on the run... but a handgun is really only good against a person.
Personal defense? Dude... if somebody is after you with a gun, chances are they're gonna shoot first if you draw... but if they have less access to concealable weapons like this, then how the fuck are they going to hold you up? With a knife? take a karate class in that case - or advocate for it to be taught in schools for PE. It's cheaper than a gun, and will probably improve your, or your kids personal discipline, and your personal awareness (shitheads won't be able to sneak up on you anymore like dirty rats without your ninja senses kicking in #stevensegal)
Fuck... pistols like that aren't even good against zombies. Ever seen any zombie movie ever? If you're worried about the zombie virus taking over everyones brains, you better load up on shotgun ammo and things that shoot fire or whatever, because zombies are brainless hoards who don't respond well to being shot by puny 9mm bullets. However, us who are here, are probably not the un-dead, and therefore we are usually pretty susceptible to 9mm parabellums to the body. Unless we're 50 cent. In that case, wtf.
I'm not saying ban all guns. I'm saying make it more difficult to obtain concealable murder-death-kill weapons that shitheads can load up with all kinds of bullshit hollowpoint ammunition, and shoot up a suburban rec center and kill your grandma while she's playing cribbage.
The government is not coming to take your guns and institute Marshall Law. Obama is not the antichrist who's here to create a Monarchy.
SO, like I said in the other thread - instead of saying we need MORE guns after a tragic shooting at a school or place of worship or wherever, how about we don't listen to the NRA (which is, if i'm not mistaken, basically bought and paid for by the gun & ammo industry - which no shit, wants to sell more guns) and instead regulate ourselves. If serious gun advocates REALLY don't want the government to freak out and take away all the guns, then do more to prevent this bullshit from happening so that when the inevitable happens, and someone "important" dies needlessly in a mass shooting, the government won't go full repeal of 2nd amendment "ya'll"
the 2nd Amendment of 1789 wasn't written to advocate for you or anyone else to be able to easily obtain a concealable semi-automatic .38 - realize that.
I feel as though anyone wanting to commit a criminal act with a gun will not obtain said firearm legally from a store. They are either going to steal it from a person they know or buy off the street. There's always gonna be a way to obtain a firearm illegally, so why restrict them for law abiding citizens? Even if high capacity firearms are banned, the criminal is going to go to the next best thing in a mass killing, a bomb. A backround check is obviously important in buying a gun but self defense should be of your own choosing with the limitations that are already in effect.
Detroit_SteezeI feel as though anyone wanting to commit a criminal act with a gun will not obtain said firearm legally from a store. They are either going to steal it from a person they know or buy off the street. There's always gonna be a way to obtain a firearm illegally, so why restrict them for law abiding citizens?
But many of the mass shootings have been committed by people who legally bought and legally owned their gun. Some posted a link a while back that even the vast majority were committed using legal guns.
Regardless, there are more checks that can be put in place(most notably post-sale checks) that ensure law abiding gun owners can still keep their guns for their own purposes. The additional checks won't take away people's guns unless the checks show that the person isn't fit to own a gun.
onenerdykidFor starters, I am not a liberal and this is not a defense of liberalism. But, I would like to know more about why you don't think humans are equal. Or why trying to achieve peace is a weird thing.
Here's moral equality in a nutshell. Human beings are all morally equal (I emphasize this to distinguish it from skillfully equal or other such notions). This is a consequence that directly follows from the concept of autonomy/free will. If I, as human, am a free being, then you are too and we cannot act in a way that limits or removes each other's freedom. To do so would be contrary to our natures and as such takes away from what it means to be human. This sets up a necessarily logical equal playing field for all humans (or any being that was rational/autonomous/free) and where our intrinsic worth (dignity) comes from. In this way, we are considered morally equal and thus should be able to do our own thing in so far as it does not conflict with another's autonomy. When someone infringes upon another's autonomy, we say it is unjust or immoral and a system of justice (should it exist) seeks to punish those who infringe upon others autonomy.
Obviously, we are not equal in terms of skill or ability, and this is not what "human equality" means. Human equality refers to our intrinsic moral worth prior to referencing what skills you possess. It's ok to be better than someone due to your abilities being better than theirs. It's not ok for one gender or race to claim moral superiority over another. Anyone who sees the two as the same is not understanding the topic.
In terms of achieving peace, I can come up with no reason as to why we should not strive to achieve it. Regardless of whether you defend your home with guns or practice complete non-violence, why would anyone not want to achieve peace? Unless you are a villain, I would imagine that you are a peaceful person until someone threatens you.
Your troll bait spotting skills are severely lacking.
JAHpowYour troll bait spotting skills are severely lacking.
I was thinking that but it was early and I hadn't my morning energy drink. Without it, I am total troll bait. I need to wait at least one hour after waking up before checking NS.
Detroit_SteezeI feel as though anyone wanting to commit a criminal act with a gun will not obtain said firearm legally from a store. They are either going to steal it from a person they know or buy off the street. There's always gonna be a way to obtain a firearm illegally, so why restrict them for law abiding citizens? Even if high capacity firearms are banned, the criminal is going to go to the next best thing in a mass killing, a bomb. A backround check is obviously important in buying a gun but self defense should be of your own choosing with the limitations that are already in effect.
The difference is that here in America an AR15 semi automatic assault rifle (a favorite of school shooters and people who think CoD is real life) costs about $1,000.
The same rifle in Australia where it is illegal goes for about $30,000 on the black market. So yes, criminals can still get it, but you have to be a very successful criminal to own one. And if you can spend $30k on a gun, chances are you're a pretty successful business person and don't really need it anyway.
Bill.NyeThe difference is that here in America an AR15 semi automatic assault rifle (a favorite of school shooters and people who think CoD is real life) costs about $1,000.
The same rifle in Australia where it is illegal goes for about $30,000 on the black market. So yes, criminals can still get it, but you have to be a very successful criminal to own one. And if you can spend $30k on a gun, chances are you're a pretty successful business person and don't really need it anyway.
Ok than if Australia is so much better than gtfo and move there. bye.
onenerdykidFor starters, I am not a liberal and this is not a defense of liberalism. But, I would like to know more about why you don't think humans are equal. Or why trying to achieve peace is a weird thing.
Here's moral equality in a nutshell. Human beings are all morally equal (I emphasize this to distinguish it from skillfully equal or other such notions). This is a consequence that directly follows from the concept of autonomy/free will. If I, as human, am a free being, then you are too and we cannot act in a way that limits or removes each other's freedom. To do so would be contrary to our natures and as such takes away from what it means to be human. This sets up a necessarily logical equal playing field for all humans (or any being that was rational/autonomous/free) and where our intrinsic worth (dignity) comes from. In this way, we are considered morally equal and thus should be able to do our own thing in so far as it does not conflict with another's autonomy. When someone infringes upon another's autonomy, we say it is unjust or immoral and a system of justice (should it exist) seeks to punish those who infringe upon others autonomy.
Obviously, we are not equal in terms of skill or ability, and this is not what "human equality" means. Human equality refers to our intrinsic moral worth prior to referencing what skills you possess. It's ok to be better than someone due to your abilities being better than theirs. It's not ok for one gender or race to claim moral superiority over another. Anyone who sees the two as the same is not understanding the topic.
In terms of achieving peace, I can come up with no reason as to why we should not strive to achieve it. Regardless of whether you defend your home with guns or practice complete non-violence, why would anyone not want to achieve peace? Unless you are a villain, I would imagine that you are a peaceful person until someone threatens you.
I didn't go into very much detail cause I was on mobile (still am) equality is good no doubt. Once I get the time to get on a computer I'll give you my response.
Honestly I don't really care about guns, I don't own one.
That being said, I don't really understand how universal background checks is going to be an issue to you gun aficionados, expect if you are mentally unstable or something. People are still going to be able to buy their guns, the plan is just to make sure psychos can't easily purchase one, so why are jimmies being rustled that much?
I must be missing part of the picture, because I honestly don't see why you would want to give a firearm to a mentally unstable individual in the first place.
And to me, the potential benefit of such a measure clearly outweighs the cost. I mean, it won't even affect me if I want to buy a gun, because a background check on me won't be a problem. And if it can prevent me from being shot down in the street by a psycho, sign me up.
I don't see what the harm is in trying since it won't even have any impact on responsible gun owners, so what am I missing here?
onenerdykidFor starters, I am not a liberal and this is not a defense of liberalism. But, I would like to know more about why you don't think humans are equal. Or why trying to achieve peace is a weird thing.
Here's moral equality in a nutshell. Human beings are all morally equal (I emphasize this to distinguish it from skillfully equal or other such notions). This is a consequence that directly follows from the concept of autonomy/free will. If I, as human, am a free being, then you are too and we cannot act in a way that limits or removes each other's freedom. To do so would be contrary to our natures and as such takes away from what it means to be human. This sets up a necessarily logical equal playing field for all humans (or any being that was rational/autonomous/free) and where our intrinsic worth (dignity) comes from. In this way, we are considered morally equal and thus should be able to do our own thing in so far as it does not conflict with another's autonomy. When someone infringes upon another's autonomy, we say it is unjust or immoral and a system of justice (should it exist) seeks to punish those who infringe upon others autonomy.
Obviously, we are not equal in terms of skill or ability, and this is not what "human equality" means. Human equality refers to our intrinsic moral worth prior to referencing what skills you possess. It's ok to be better than someone due to your abilities being better than theirs. It's not ok for one gender or race to claim moral superiority over another. Anyone who sees the two as the same is not understanding the topic.
In terms of achieving peace, I can come up with no reason as to why we should not strive to achieve it. Regardless of whether you defend your home with guns or practice complete non-violence, why would anyone not want to achieve peace? Unless you are a villain, I would imagine that you are a peaceful person until someone threatens you.
I do believe humans should be equal considering rights, but as you said, we aren't equal in skill or ability in some things. Most liberals I've met (granted most of the liberals Ive met and talked to are under 25 years old) think women should be just as important in the military. Are women important? Hell yes! none of us would be here without them. But its a fact that males are better in physical activities, like war. So sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.
A lot of liberals are anti-gun, but they believe everyone should do what they want. So if someone wants an abortion, they can have one. If I want a gun, I can have one. The idea of liberals today seem nice but they want everyone to be on the same page. Everyone deserves an equal chance to achieve things. Whats the point of working hard?
As for peace, I want peace. Thats what is going to solve the problem. Its impossible to get rid of guns. But if you do you still have knives. Get rid of knives and you have hammers. Get rid of hammers and people still have fists. The point I'm trying to make is people need to change, not our gun policies. Because if someone really wants to hurt someone, they're going to do it.
Sorry if some of that didn't make sense. I just got home from my ACT and my brain is fried haha.
.lenconI do believe humans should be equal considering rights, but as you said, we aren't equal in skill or ability in some things. Most liberals I've met (granted most of the liberals Ive met and talked to are under 25 years old) think women should be just as important in the military. Are women important? Hell yes! none of us would be here without them. But its a fact that males are better in physical activities, like war. So sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.
A lot of liberals are anti-gun, but they believe everyone should do what they want. So if someone wants an abortion, they can have one. If I want a gun, I can have one. The idea of liberals today seem nice but they want everyone to be on the same page. Everyone deserves an equal chance to achieve things. Whats the point of working hard?
As for peace, I want peace. Thats what is going to solve the problem. Its impossible to get rid of guns. But if you do you still have knives. Get rid of knives and you have hammers. Get rid of hammers and people still have fists. The point I'm trying to make is people need to change, not our gun policies. Because if someone really wants to hurt someone, they're going to do it.
Sorry if some of that didn't make sense. I just got home from my ACT and my brain is fried haha.
ACTs sucked... glad to hear you survived.
People definitely need to keep the concepts of "equal opportunity" and "equal ability" distinct. If they don't then they will make mistakes in their argument (and I'm not saying you are doing that). The chance for women to be in the military (equal opportunity) should definitely be present since there are for sure women who are stronger and more physically capable than some men (i.e. Ronda Rousey is definitely a better combatant than Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory). Gender does not automatically or universally rule out ability. If a woman were to ever legitimately become a Navy Seal, I would not think her ability to carry out her duty was any less than a man's, provided she passed the same tests as the men. But a problem would then exist if the standards for entry become lower so that women can more easily enter the military (promoting equal ability). The opportunity to join should be present but if they are not able to pass the required tests, then they shouldn't be allowed to join regardless if they are male or female.
Equal opportunity doesn't mean that everyone is getting the equal share. It just means that everyone has the same chance to prove themselves. If they don't prove themselves, then they don't make it to the next level. What some people, like Bernie, are in favor of is making sure more people have easier access to the education/training that will allow them to possess the skills to get to the next level. In my opinion, when that happens we all win. It still doesn't guarantee anything or ensure everyone gets an equal share, it simply increases the amount of people that can compete.
As for the guns, let's keep all of them. The notion that they will be taken away is the result of a slippery slope fallacy the NRA loves to use to make gun owners afraid. It won't happen, so let's plan on all of the guns staying. Now, in countries where they do have better gun control, it does work. Their mass murders have all but been erased basically which proves that people won't find other means to kill people. These countries don't see an increase in bombings or chemical attacks or any other form of mass murder. There is a better balance we can strike between allowing citizens to own guns and keeping guns out of the hands that shouldn't own them.
onenerdykidACTs sucked... glad to hear you survived.
People definitely need to keep the concepts of "equal opportunity" and "equal ability" distinct. If they don't then they will make mistakes in their argument (and I'm not saying you are doing that). The chance for women to be in the military (equal opportunity) should definitely be present since there are for sure women who are stronger and more physically capable than some men (i.e. Ronda Rousey is definitely a better combatant than Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory). Gender does not automatically or universally rule out ability. If a woman were to ever legitimately become a Navy Seal, I would not think her ability to carry out her duty was any less than a man's, provided she passed the same tests as the men. But a problem would then exist if the standards for entry become lower so that women can more easily enter the military (promoting equal ability). The opportunity to join should be present but if they are not able to pass the required tests, then they shouldn't be allowed to join regardless if they are male or female.
Equal opportunity doesn't mean that everyone is getting the equal share. It just means that everyone has the same chance to prove themselves. If they don't prove themselves, then they don't make it to the next level. What some people, like Bernie, are in favor of is making sure more people have easier access to the education/training that will allow them to possess the skills to get to the next level. In my opinion, when that happens we all win. It still doesn't guarantee anything or ensure everyone gets an equal share, it simply increases the amount of people that can compete.
As for the guns, let's keep all of them. The notion that they will be taken away is the result of a slippery slope fallacy the NRA loves to use to make gun owners afraid. It won't happen, so let's plan on all of the guns staying. Now, in countries where they do have better gun control, it does work. Their mass murders have all but been erased basically which proves that people won't find other means to kill people. These countries don't see an increase in bombings or chemical attacks or any other form of mass murder. There is a better balance we can strike between allowing citizens to own guns and keeping guns out of the hands that shouldn't own them.
I'm on mobile again (now taking senior pictures lol). But yeah I get that some women are strong. If you can pass the same tests men do, then yeah you are capable and should be able to do so.
And yeah I'm sorry I'm not going into great detail but I agree with you for a lot of this. We all deserve a chance to prove ourselves.
But I don't like the fact that most democrats want to take more from the rich (I'm starting to get off topic but who cares) I feel like taxes should be a flat rate more or less. And I hate seeing my tax dollars go to waste
Oh look, more bi-partisan idiots who think gun control means banning all guns! Shocking. I guess no one read the study on states that have stronger gun control laws have less gun violence... even though its easy enough for people to buy a gun privately over the border legally.
You can purchase thousands of rounds of armor piercing rounds online, only recently did you need a background check to purchase guns at gun shows and yet these idiots are still proclaiming that the government is trying to take away everyone's rights to own a gun.
Welcome to America. Home of the free and the completely idiotic. Just wait for the absurd comparisons to Hitler, drunken drivers and "mass murderers" who will use a spoon to kill people if they want to.
Oops, I apologize, you're right. You cannot purchase thousands of rounds of armor-piercing rounds online without question or background check, just thousands of regular ol' rounds of ammunition without any sort of second glance or background check... and tear gas canisters and body armor...
skiermanOh look, more bi-partisan idiots who think gun control means banning all guns! Shocking. I guess no one read the study on states that have stronger gun control laws have less gun violence... even though its easy enough for people to buy a gun privately over the border legally.
You can purchase thousands of rounds of armor piercing rounds online, only recently did you need a background check to purchase guns at gun shows and yet these idiots are still proclaiming that the government is trying to take away everyone's rights to own a gun.
Welcome to America. Home of the free and the completely idiotic. Just wait for the absurd comparisons to Hitler, drunken drivers and "mass murderers" who will use a spoon to kill people if they want to.
I don't think you know what bipartisan means. Also the NY safe act banned the sale of rifles with a pistol grip so...
JAHpowI don't think you know what bipartisan means. Also the NY safe act banned the sale of rifles with a pistol grip so...
*Partisan and yeah, that's another fine example of people trying to pass meaningful gun regulation but due to gun lobbyists/politicians in the pockets of ammunition/gun manufacturers, they can only pass senseless and stupid gun control measures that don't actually affect anything.
To me, gun use in America is a major problem. I can't go into this pretending the goal is to stop mass shootings - what gets media attention - because it isn't, and to say we can prevent all mass shootings is misleading (and extremely improbable).
The forgotten tragedies happen every day, all around the US. From New York to Los Angeles, 400,000 people have been killed by guns in the last decade. 400,000 fucking lives gone. 400,000 people who had dreams and families. It's epidemic, and the implications are far-reaching. A disproportionate number of these deaths occur in minority neighborhoods, so, because of an action enabled by a gun, there's someone dead and perhaps many more in prison (another topic for discussion). So now these people's kids don't have a mom or dad, and they become part of this vicious cycle of underachievement, violence, and crime.
How do we fix it? By far the most important thing to be done is improving education for all Americans. We need to stop pretending that equal opportunity is a thing, because it isn't, and the problem lies solely with education. Through education we can break these cycles of poverty and make the American Dream a possibility.
Do I sound alarmist? Idealist? Maybe, but these problems have solutions, and we must pursue them without regard to cost of any kind.
.lenconBut I don't like the fact that most democrats want to take more from the rich (I'm starting to get off topic but who cares) I feel like taxes should be a flat rate more or less. And I hate seeing my tax dollars go to waste
With my limited understanding of economics and taxes, if a 14% flat tax could be legislated (without loopholes or tax breaks or other evasions that the rich take advantage of) then I could see that being totally fine and it would probably help our current predicament. The problem currently is that people like Warren Buffet effectively pay only 7% in taxes, due to the present tax cuts/loopholes/deductions and this allows them to avoid paying the same rate as lower income families. And that's completely unfair.
If you have the time, check out this debate with legit economists, featuring one who worked for Reagan and one who was the former Secretary of Labor for Clinton. It's long, but if you actually want to hear trained professionals answering these questions that we here are barely scratching the surface on, you need to give it a look.
Well, advocating for people to use guns to kill cops isn't. Just because a few highly publicized cops did some terrible shit, doesn't mean that the tens of thousands of other cops around the country are bad people too. Generalization and mass assumptions are bullshit.
Monsieur_PatateHonestly I don't really care about guns, I don't own one.
That being said, I don't really understand how universal background checks is going to be an issue to you gun aficionados, expect if you are mentally unstable or something. People are still going to be able to buy their guns, the plan is just to make sure psychos can't easily purchase one, so why are jimmies being rustled that much?
No one cares about the extra background checks. In fact, most responsible gun owners support it. For example, when I acquired my concealed pistol license, I got my fingerprints taken at the police station, I filled out an application, and upon approval I got a license signed by the county sheriff, allowing me certain privileges and responsibilities.
People are so upset about some of the laws not because of the background checks specifically, but because a few of them are specifically designed to make it as hard as possible for normal people to purchase weapons or ammunition. Especially in california these days. Heavy taxation on even small amounts of ammunition. Federal background checks and applications and waiting periods everytime someone buys a box of ammo. Making it illegal to "transfer" weapons without filing paperwork and paying a fee is a big one here in washington, where the law is so vague that even safely handing a rifle to your hunting partner before crossing a fence, and then receiving it back is a crime. Or even sharing weapons while target shooting. Its not just about these minor laws in effect right now either. Many, many organizations and sensational soccer moms are calling for the banning of guns and all kinds of rash, extreme laws. Nothing wrong with anyone disagreeing with that, but when they do its all "those crazy gun nuts are at it again with their baby killing magazine clip ghost guns".
Get a grip.
I consider myself liberal on quite a few matters, but I believe in gun rights. Does something need to be done about gun violence and the mass shootings as of late? Absolutely. But access to guns, regardless of financial or social standing, is something that is never going to go away. Education and proper parenting are key. The problem isn't just that guns exist. It's the people who get their hands on them and choose to do bad things.