PreparationH said:

Their logic doesn't add up when you realize that they're just saying they want our AR15's banned for now, then they will come for our pistols and like nooneman said, the real agenda is to leave you with revolvers lol.  Beard is sitting here acting like if AR's are gone the next in line is someone using a mosin nagant, the truth is the next would be a glock, and then they will try banning them too.  Give them an inch and they will take a mile


This is known to people paying attention, which is why if you want them, you're gonna have to take them lmao.

---

Seriously_trippin said:

It shouldn't be all about you and "them" it should be about trying to find any kind of compromise that will specifically reduce the capability of people that can let off 50+ rounds in under a minute or two anywhere in America with very big hardly treatable wounds from those specific types of bullets. M4 and AR15s  are INCREDIBLY accurate at mid to long ranges which just isn't the case with handguns or shotguns.

  I've always been clear that handguns shotguns and hunting rifles have their legal place. So why would I try and take all the guns away? If they tried that I'd stand with you but you're talking about stopping something completely hypothetical and I'm begging you and everyone in that school of thought to listen to the possibility of trying something proactive to make a difference.

---

Seriously_trippin said:

PreparationH said:

Their logic doesn't add up when you realize that they're just saying they want our AR15's banned for now, then they will come for our pistols and like nooneman said, the real agenda is to leave you with revolvers lol.  Beard is sitting here acting like if AR's are gone the next in line is someone using a mosin nagant, the truth is the next would be a glock, and then they will try banning them too.  Give them an inch and they will take a mile


This is known to people paying attention, which is why if you want them, you're gonna have to take them lmao.

---

It shouldn't be all about you and "them" it should be about trying to find any kind of compromise that will specifically reduce the capability of people that can let off 50+ rounds in under a minute or two anywhere in America with very big hardly treatable wounds from those specific types of bullets. M4 and AR15s  are INCREDIBLY accurate at mid to long ranges which just isn't the case with handguns or shotguns.

  I've always been clear that handguns shotguns and hunting rifles have their legal place. So why would I try and take all the guns away? If they tried that I'd stand with you but you're talking about stopping something completely hypothetical and I'm begging you and everyone in that school of thought to listen to the possibility of trying something proactive to make a difference.

---

koods said:

I think we’ve reached the point where the the lack of reason coming from the right warrants the complete revocation of the second ammendment. It’s an anachronism that deserves to be in the dustbin of historical mistakes to be learned from.

---

^^^^^
Just read koods' posts in this thread

I'm not interested in negotiating rights away because criminals have been going on rampages and you think it will stop at the AR-15 and AK variant, yet multiple people have sat here saying they want it to go further, much further.  Nope.


If you disagree with them, you're called names like gun nut, backwards, or gun fetishest.

These people are mods too, it's clearly disrespectful, yet I don't care personally because their opinions are worthless and I have been contacted by other shroomery mods regarding Koods' behavior over time and how he gets a pass and I am unsure why.  Watch him ban me for talking about private messages next, that would be icing on the cake

koods said:

I think we’ve reached the point where the the lack of reason coming from the right warrants the complete revocation of the second ammendment. It’s an anachronism that deserves to be in the dustbin of historical mistakes to be learned from.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Do none of you guys that insist on sticking doggedly to a law that was enacted hundreds of years ago ever feel like you might be holding back human progress and evolution a little?

Like, I get the whole 'they can't fuck with my rights' thing, but does it never occur to you that being so rigid is counterproductive?

---

Zyiadem said:

If you think a government with china-like surveillance and control is the future then yea I'm all about pushing against evolution, my ape ass would live in a tree for that.

---

Zyiadem said:

Discussing what you're saying there belongs in philosophy and religion tags. As I feel it is foolish to think holding onto a piece of metal could stop evolution/the natural order.

---

Fiery said:

I think England is silly, the cops don't carry guns.... but the criminals do.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Zyiadem said:

---

Full circle my ass.

---

Zyiadem said:

I guess the main difference is that I see is 393,347,000 firearms and less than 1% of them doing crime is a pretty major win; Couple that with a 3 year period (Between 1987 and 1990) that 258,460 crimes were averted by citizens with guns with only "28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims fired the gun at the offender." Meaning that a gun is not just for killing but stopping crime without firing a shot.

---

I covered this earlier beard.

You shouldn't trust anyone you don't share space and a significant amount of time with. Humans have a very limited ability to see other humans as "human" The same reason why "Karens" are so brutal to retail workers and sociopaths are so successful. They simply see them as a means to an end.

Violence is real and safety is an illusion, History has been violent and I do not foresee that changing. I live in the reality we have and feel it is more important to see it as such rather than some utopic dreamland that already has trans rights, perfect equality, no violence and no pedophiles running countries.

(Sociopath link.)

Zyiadem said:

You shouldn't trust anyone you don't share space and a significant amount of time with. Humans have a very limited ability to see other humans as "human"

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Zyiadem said:

You shouldn't trust anyone you don't share space and a significant amount of time with. Humans have a very limited ability to see other humans as "human"

---

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree at this point; I take the opposite stance - I trust by default - and it's never done me wrong, the world over. In fact I'd say that my life is all the richer for it. I completely disagree about humans having a limited ability to see each other as equals, but I guess I didn't grow up in your shoes so maybe that's how you were treated by others.

Either way, it's been fun, and I appreciate you engaging and taking the time to parley with me.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Loud bangs aint scary unless you're a coward dog.

---

lowbrow said:

koods said:

I think we’ve reached the point where the the lack of reason coming from the right warrants the complete revocation of the second ammendment. It’s an anachronism that deserves to be in the dustbin of historical mistakes to be learned from.

---

You are an authoritarian that flirts with fascist ideals, this seems like something you’d think.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Zyiadem said:

Yall just went full circle in your argument, because people without guns cannot defend themselves from people with guns

---

What shit is this? Mate, if someone came into a small enclosed space (as per Asante's example above) with a bolt action rifle and loosed a round at someone, you can bet I'd be trying to tear their fucking face off the first time they went to reload.

They wouldn't stand even a tiny chance if they were carrying some muzzle loaded, circa 1776 rifle; people would mob the cunt in a shot.

Full circle my ass.

---