DNC Delegate Caught on Camera Admitting Gun Laws Are a Front

>infowars.com

Conspiracy shit.

Even if this weren't a sensationalist piece, it doesn't matter who wants to ban firearms. It would never allowed to proceed on constitutional grounds; not to mention the public backlash that would follow such measures.

>>62338
The wageslave thinks that politicians present themselves and their opinions truthfuly and that they absolutely have no agendas. How cute.
Bye bye wagecuck, I'm sure you enjoyed trying out opinions in this thread, but opinions don't pay your boss' vacations. Stop slacking little sheep. Time to jump over those fences.

>>62338
Thanks for Correcting The Record

$0.02 have been deposited into your account

>>62338
Hilary has actually said that the courts are wrong on the second amendment and wants to work to correct that

>>62344
>>62345
>>62348
Don't mess with Alex Jones' drones.

>>62350
Thanks for Correcting The Record

$0.02 have been deposited into your account

>>62358
What she said is literally politics 101.

>Building a wall on the Mexican border is just common sense legislation so our children are safe

>>62360
Thanks for Correcting The Record

$0.02 have been deposited into your account

>>62333
gb2/infowars and don't come back.

I believe she said it, however who the fuck is Mary Bayer. Also, whatever she and Hillary want, congress is still a thing, and striking out something off the fucking bill of rights is unprecedented.

>>62363
That's some amazing debate skills you got there anon.

>>62403
no shekels for you ( ‾ʖ̫‾)

>>62338
US is already losing the arms battle.
Shit, drones were made illegal before they even had a chance to do good, just in case they might be used by the population to defend themselves.

>>62333
Surprising news to no one who's followed the 'facts' of the 'major tragedies' of the last 10 years

>>62367
infowars injects it's christian slant usually, it's tiresome, but don't be fooled into thinking that means nothing they report is real, equally as stupid as being an unobjectively rabid supporter.

>>62417
I like that he also owns prisonplanet

>>62338
>Conspiracy shit.
It's on video.

>Implying what an ALTERNATE candidate thinks is true or matters
Maybe that's why SHE does but she is not a policy maker, and even if HRC herself said this it would not happen.

This is the equivalent of capping a 4chan post as source.

Gun laws are Aryan nationalism at its finest if Ahmed and his muzzie goons opened a Sharia infirmary and stockpiled 1,000,000 AR-15s with body armor here in the US these same rednecks would cry for a limitation on guns and stricter laws.

These gun laws allow good Ol boys with farmland teach their 3 year old daughters to shoot m60e3s and have unlimited ammo in their homes while felons aren't even allowed to vote

There shouldn't be a all out ban on anything but farmer John shouldn't be allowed to have 6,000 militarized weapons to protect his wife and son from a cat burglar while going to gunshows to sell his armory to criminals/terrorist without a background check

They are trying to take away all guns and even ban water guns but there is room for middle ground here.. but no negotiations can be made with this fake left/right sheep paradigm we call democracy

>>62443
Amendment 2. Read it again, then post it here, faggot.

>>62417
>Dont be fooled into believing God isn't real, just because we haven't seen him, heard him, touched him, or even found traces of his existence.

Listen, I can only stand reading about how infowars was wrong about shit so long before I start calling bullshit on them.

Guys please InfoWars is legit. The liberal atheists are trying to summon Lucifer to become computer demons with unlimited power! Stock up on apocalypse pills before the UN troops force you into a hobbit home!

>>62338
California just recently tried to ban all semi auto guns with a detatchable magazine. The vast majority of semi auto guns before it was vrtoed by their governor.

>n-nobody is coming for your guns

eat shit

>>62443
>muh militarized weapons

awb was tried fro. 1994-2004 and pr9ven to have had no effect

fuck off

>>62488
This...lmao love it.

Also, infowars? Really? I tried looking it up and could not find one major news outlet reporting the same thing. Also, I can't find any info on who Mary Bayer really is.

ALSO, the video is incredibly edited. Would like to see the full video. If we're going to give cops the benefit of the doubt after seeing them shoot citizens on video, then we should be able to take this news with a grain of salt.

>>62500
>Also, I can't find any info on who Mary Bayer really is.
Your googling skills are shit
http://m.ocregister.com/articles/sanders-723548-clinton-democratic.html
Alternate delegate for a California House rep.

She's an ALTERNATE DELEGATE from California??? Really???

WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT SHE SAYS ?!?! She does not represent the entire democratic party. She's literally at the bottom of the totem pole. That's like blaming the Iraq war on George Bush's intern. I can't believe I wasted my time with this, smh

>>62333
>DNC Delegate Caught on Camera
>on infowars.com
>not on mainstream media
>will never see this again

good job people.

>>62516
>>62516
would love to see this video

#62496
Read between the lines cocksucker faggot hicks shouldn't be allowed to go to these Aryan gapeshow gunshows n sell muh weapons to terrorist and criminals with no background check and stockpile guns in their barnyard because the bleed NASCAR if Jamal from shitcago or Muhammad from Syria tried the same thing you hypocrites would cry to the feds and pass laws to stop it

I said NO GUNS should be banned but I don't want terrorist/gangs going to gun shows buying 100s of rifles illegally with no background check

Why does some redneck need 10,000 guns and unlimited ammo if he's not a gun store owner.. anybody could easily steal all his guns while he's working on his tractor

but you're strawman argument is better than everyones because you have a 120 IQ and have a bachelor's in being a weak gapecuck

>>62520
You are a fucking idiot who really needs to read up on the stats.

Muh gunshow loophole is a fucking boogeyman. Only a tiny minority of crime guns are obtained from gun shows.

http://www.ncpa.org/images/1632.gif

>>62495
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to detachable magazines.

>>62522
How the fuck would anyone know how many crimes are committed with gun show guns when the ATF, CDC, and FBI are specifically prohibited by congress from keeping gun violence stats because off >muh NRA

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

>>62333
Even if all 3 branches of government acted in favor of a full gun ban, they would still have to get 2/3rds gen pop vote to repeal 2nd amendment. Last and only time that happened some cunts made booze frustrating to come by.

>>62596
>You're allowed to have guns
>but not the guns I don't want you to have
>the founding fathers were retarded and only referred to guns that were around during the 1700s
>they never once anticipated guns would advance, so those can't be protected by the constitution
>I am pants-on-head retarded

>>62596
I sense a faggot

>>62601
Facts and logic on /news/? Color me surprised.

>>62600
>yfw the 2012 CDC study on gun control obama commissioned blew your faggot gungrabber asses out of the water and exposed all your lies
>mfw you cucks just ignore it instead of modifying your fucking retarded views

>>62596
Freedom of speech doesn't cover the internet. The founding fathers couldn't have possibly conceived of the internet.

It's Freedom of SPEECH not Freedom of KEYBOARD TAPPING.

>>62690
>yfw the 2012 CDC study on gun control obama commissioned blew your faggot gungrabber asses out of the water and exposed all your lies
Explain how it "blew my faggot gungrabber ass" out of some imaginary body of water when nobody is trying to grab anyone's guns.

>>62716
You're right but for the wrong reason. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to privately owned websites.

>>62600
You are a fucking idiot who assumes only the CDC can do gun research. Kill yourself retard.

>>62596
Fuck off gun banning cunt.

>>62717
>no one is coming for your guns
>in a thread about a shillary campaign member caught laying out how they're going to come for our guns
wew

>>62722
Oh wait, sorry, I didn't realize you were gullible enough to think it's going to happen anytime soon, my apologies.

>>62443
>>62596
>>62600
>>62717
>>62724

Christ alive can we just rename this board to /leftypol/ already?

Statist cunts all over that can't wait to get fucked by the federal weenie for free benefits.

>>62730
If you want it to change then speak up the more of us that voice our views the more balanced /news/ will be.

>>62730

>MUH
>GUNZ

>>62730
I was only shitpposting.

>>62604
I mean that isn't a completely horrible assumption. Who knows how they would feel seeing newer gun models today?

>>62730
Bruh
All gun control advocates here are shitposters, no exception

>>62813
The Puckle gun existed at the time of the constitution, the idea that they wouldn't know of modern firearms is a fallacy.

>>62889

And the first selective firearm bans were against the wheellock shortly after its invention and use in some assassinations in the early 17th century. They knew well about gun control and its historical significance. That's why the 2nd Amendment doesn't explicitly say anything like "no gun control".

>>62601
or the supreme court could just start interpreting the amendment as it is writtien, that people should have guns in order to form organized militias. the idea that every redneck has a right to keep an arsenal in his home to defend himself from niggers is absurd, and it has only been interpreted that way in the past 3 or 4 decades because of a flood of money from the gun manufacture lobby.

>>62889
>the puckle gun is comparable to modern weapons

No it's not, shut the fuck up. The Puckle was a multi-shot musket that barely did that right. It didn't even get enough investors, so only two prototypes are left. The Puckle gave people even more reason to stick to the cheap, uncomplicated musket.

>>62889
can this retarded meme die already? reliable and affordable repeating rifles and handguns didn't exist until the 1890s and you stupid fags know it.

>>62914
Thats called activist adjudication. The other two branches dont take kindly to it. Nor does the electorate.

Nobody is coming for your guns, /k/.

Stop falling for Smith&Wesson's marketing gimmicks.

>>62933
>activist adjudication
No, that would actually be called constitutional originalism. The reinterpretation of the 2cnd amendment in DC v Heller, contravening 200 years of precedent and the actual words of the document, is one of the most glaring examples of Judicial activism in the history of the united states.

Rest your dumb liberal heads on this Belton rifle and stack of quotes from the makers of the BoRights since you guys obviously believe our Rights don't extend to the modern day

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials"
- George Mason
- Elliot, debates, 425-426

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
- Thomas Jefferson
- https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
- Thomas Jefferson. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl278.php

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

>>62986
>I posted it again, Clem!

>all the leftishit damage cobtrol itt

rename this board to /r/news already

>>62813
They saw a semi automatic rifle in their day, thought it was cool but they it cost too much to use in the military.

>>62990
Not everything has a partisan slant to it.


If you think it does then gb2/>>>/pol/

>>63008
Except it does when it comes to guns you leftishit cunt.

>>63008
Found the leftshit.

>>62333
There are about to be a lot of boating accidents over on /k/.

>>63013
>>63019
>leftshit
>>>/pol/

>>62986
None of those people were authors of the Federalist papers, so their opinions mean nothing. Unless John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, or James Madison said it, it doesn't matter.

>>63019
>>>/pol/

K

>>63023
Fuck off to /r/news lefticancer.

>>63023
>>63041
You're on the wrong website, man fucker scum.

>>63060
>heh we're altright, don't you know? we OWN this site

>>>eight chan dot com

>>62914
The amendment as written states that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and stipulates the purpose for why it was written, but by no means exclusively so.

Super don't understand how 1 sentence can be misinterpreted so stupidly for so long, especially considering people owned artillery and warships that could ruin cities back when it was written.

Also, the gun lobby is maintained by grass roots gun owners, of which there are 100ish million in the US.

ALSO, the gun control lobby run by Michael Bloomberg recently got BTFO in 2013 even after outspending gun rights groups 8:1, which the only legislative "victories" coming from bills passed in the dead of night with no voter input, so congrats I guess.

>>62333
No shit. Also, nice triple you got there. Check 'em.

>>63022
Very, very unfortunate and unsuspicious boating accidents.

>>63037
What?

>americans actually like guns all over their country

>>62911
"shall not be infringed"
Please tell me how you interpret that.

>>63149
No the better thing to laugh at is
>in this modern age, Americans think guns will save them from an oppresive government

>>63155
"well regulated militia"
Please tell us all how you misinterpret that.

>>63093
The definitive source on interpreting the constitution is a series of essays written under the pseudonym Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They were designed as an explanation and defense of the at the time unratified constitution to the public. Those three men have the final, definitive say on what the constitution says and doesn't say. So here, for example, is Federalist no. 29, helpfully entitled 'Concerning the Militia':

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29

>>63156
No the better thing to laugh at is
>while crying about Trump being the next lither, leftists and yuros cry about how Americans don't need guns

>>63160
>well regulated militia
>Please tell us all how you misinterpret that.

Tell us what you mistakenly believe this means so we can get you being wrong and getting corrected out of the way.

>>63160
Militia is anyone over 16 and under 45

>>63167
ok I'll bite

first of all, I believe automatic weapons and assault rifles should be illegal to the general public.

that being said, there was no such thing as assault rifles in 1770. there was no internet. there was no statistical data about life in 2016. so to use the "founding fathers said..." as your primary argument is flawed. they could not account for those new developments. HOWEVER. their principles are a good guideline for how to manage our country going forward

>>63176
Read the paper you ass, I agree with you. Federalist no. 29 outlines the regulated militia as being composed of the citizens of and organized by the states. It's essentially saying: If we gotta have a standing national army, then we should have state militias so that that army can never take over the whole country. It isn't saying 'every tom dick and harry should have a gun lol that's the only way to defend ur liberty'. So the second amendment doesn't protect any kind of individual right to a firearm.

>>63176
>>I believe automatic weapons and assault rifles should be illegal to the general public.
No one cares what you think, you stupid retard. Private ownership of firearms (especially firearms that "look scary" to easily offended or disturbed dipshits such as yourself) is one of the few things we have left that allows us to be independent adults and not glorified wards of the state. You and the rest of the gun control advocates can all fuck off to europe for all I or anyone else who isn't a faggot like you little dipshits cares.

>>63037
Yeah no, I see no reason why the opinions of the authors of the federalist papers should matter more then Thomas Jefferson.

>>63187
This is sarcasm, right?

>>63191
Nope.

>>63198
Do you have any idea who James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were?

>>63209
Influential politicians among our nations founders.

>>63180
>the second amendment doesn't protect any kind of individual right to a firearm.
Too bad that's exactly what it does, huh?

>>62338
>conspiracy shit
>shows video of person saying ban all guns

You are a special kind of mentally deficient retard, aren't you?

Kill yourself so your shit genes do not enter the gene pool and make it any stupider than it currently is.

>>62400
A Clinton Delegate you uneducated prole.

>>63223
For now, and only due to shameless conservative judicial activism. DC v. Heller is the law of the land only until a new supreme court case overturns it. Up until 2008 the court had maintained that there was no such protection.

>>63212
Yes, but here's the thing. All founding fathers did not contribute equally in all areas. Jefferson was in France during the constitutional convention, so his insights don't hold as much weight as Jay, Hamilton, and Madison's as all of them played a major role both in drafting the document and in then in getting the American people to go along with it. That's why Jefferson's writings are barely ever cited in SCOTUS decisions, while the Federalist Papers are almost always cited.

>>63264
>shameless conservative judicial activism

Good joke anon, I don't think literally reading the letter of the law is much of an overreach, especially when the left side somehow made the argument that murdering your unborn child is a constitutional right.

But I guess if the constitution says something it doesn't actually say that, and if it doesn't say something then it really actually does say that.

>>63264
>>Yes, but here's the thing

I really don't give a fuck, private ownership of firearms is far more important then anything as trivial as safety ever will be to me.

Furthermore,

>>For now, and only due to shameless conservative judicial activism.
This is actually wrong.

>>DC v. Heller is the law of the land only until a new supreme court case overturns it
This ain't happening.

>>63271
Again, read Federalist No. 29. It ourlines pretty clearly what the founders intended the second amendment to mean.

>>63284
>I really don't give a fuck, private ownership of firearms is far more important then anything as trivial as safety ever will be to me.

Fortunately, your feelings have no real bearing on constitutional law.

>>63264
This is absolutely historically inaccurate

>>63289
And neither do yours

>>63289
Fortunately for me and everyone else who isn't a faggot, the Heller case and other cases that built upon it do have bearing on constitutional law.

>>63285
People owned warships and artillery capable of blowing up a fucking fortress when it was written.

It says exactly what it means, and if they intended otherwise then it would have been written differently.

>Federalist No. 29
Nice laff m8, but militia membership, function, and all of that shit means dick all for the 2A, because nowhere does it state that militia membership is REQUIRED in order to exercise your right to bear arms, only that the purpose of the amendment was so that a militia can be formed as necessary, and should it not be necessary then the amendment doesn't just go away because you want it to, unless you're going to somehow argue that only the small amount of people selected to actively serve in a militia be granted a right that is expressed extended to all American citizens.

>>63289
Constitutional law is based on the principles and spirit of the constitution of the United States, and to a lesser extend the declaration of independence, which guarantees the basic freedom of all Americans, one foundation of which that the people have the means to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, and a bullet in the brain is always going to be greatest of last resorts there will ever be, so to argue otherwise basically makes you brain dead and probably a communist and logically both.

>>63310
He is just a Progressive Fascist even Communists think that the people should bear arms and have weapons.

>>63264
>W-well you know it will change soon, buddy
>I-i mean Jefferson w-wasn't even there guys, he was useless...

Grasping
(The reasoning)[the enactment]{the action}|memorize this part|
( A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,) [the right of the People to {keep and bear arms} |shall not be infringed.|]

>>63292
It's actually just one case, McDonald v Chicago. And even more fortuitously, DC v. Heller doesn't overturn the regulatory power allowed to the government under US v Miller, which has allowed DC to ban all bottom loading weapons without any successful legal challenge.

>>63290
It's actually 100% historically accurate, unless you can magic out of your ass a whole shitload of SCOTUS decisions that reference Jefferson's writings and somehow prove that he wasn't serving as the chief diplomat in France during the convention. Maybe go read a US 101 textbook before you make another post ITT.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

>>63309
That's precisely what both Hamilton and I are suggesting. State organized and run militias to check the power of the Federal army.

>>63160
Anyone available for being drafted. Now, for the second time, please explain what "Shall not be infringed" means.

>>63176
What are you calling an assault rifle, out of curiosity? Scary looking black gun that functions the exact same as it's wood-clad counterpart?

>>63349
Presumably he's referring to semi-automatic weapons that feature detachable box magazines and pistol grips. It's really the detachable mags that are the issue, it's much easier to kill a shitload of people if you can reload in a few seconds and get 30+ shots a magazine.

>>62333
Can't trust it fully cuz of all the edits at certain parts in the video

>>63349
From the fact that he doesn't know that the Puckle gun was around in the time of the revolution so the founding fathers did know of fully automatic firearms, he is clearly a mush brained moron that thinks guns will come alive and rape his mother while luring children to its gingerbread house.

>>63368
>the puckle gun

Would actually not exist circa 1787, because only two were ever built, with the last report of one being used is a listing on a shipping manifest in 1722.

>>62333
>common sense legislation
anyone who doesn't kneejerk hate this word and become extremely suspicious of anyone who says it seriously is a retard

>>63351
Is there any gun other than blackpowder that can't be loaded in a matter of seconds? I can put out ten rounds from a bolt action in under 20 seconds with accuracy and reload it well within ten. Do they think the extra few seconds are really going to slow down a gunman? Do they expect it to not just cause a shift to sniping attacks instead? What's the logic? What is the end goal?

>>63544
>Do they think the extra few seconds are really going to slow down a gunman?
I do remember a couple years back a gunman opening fire at a mosque and while he was reloading a mob of people rushed him and then beat him to death.

>>63565
Source? What gun was he using?

>>63351
An AWB was tried from 1994-2004 and proven to had no effect.

>>63689
More importantly, massacres are statistically irrelevant, most firearm crime is blacks shooting other blacks over drug money with illegally acquired weapons in the first place. So the whole gun control thing is just a tiresome canard to begin with.

>>has allowed DC to ban all bottom loading weapons without any successful legal challenge.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your dumbfuckery, but I will say one thing here, this law has done little to nothing to affect the homicide rate in DC because the criminal element acquires there firearms through illegal means(straw purchases typically) in the first place, and nobody in the democrat controlled cities wants to actually enforce the laws against straw purchases in the first place.

>>63344
>>That's precisely what both Hamilton and I are suggesting.

No one cares what you and hamilton suggested the facts are that the second amendment of the bill of rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.

>>63318
>(The reasoning)[the enactment]{the action}|memorize this part|
>( A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,) [the right of the People to {keep and bear arms} |shall not be infringed.|]

Precisely this. Fuck any and all gungrabber shits.

>>63704
>Fuck any and all gungrabber shits.
Gun Company sales rep. detected.

>>62511
>6 shekels have been deposited into your Juden pile.

>>63707
lol no.

>>62596
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say freedom of speech should extend to anything beyond physical speaking or letters because they didn't forsee telephones, TV, Internet or social media.

If you wanna be so archaic, get off and become Amish.

>>62333
Delegates can be anybody if they are willing to put up with the long process of boring nonsense they have to go through. That one video of that guy saying "we need to brainwash them to hate guns." Is way more damning.

inb4 I hate fun. I support Constitutional Carry.

>>63156
The better thing to laugh at is human beings that surrender their self preservation instinct so that the police will protect them (they don't have to protect you.)

And yes, banning semi automatic weapons is a gun ban. Leaving only bolt action .22 rifles with a 20 round maximum storage, with the obligatory gun license which costs $250 and has to be regularly renewed if you actually get approved to practice your second amendment rights. Should do the same with the first amendment as well since apparently the Constitution is too old to be relevant anymore.

>>62424
so are UFO sightings

>>62344
>politicians are dishonest
>THEREFORE ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE TRUE

>>62604
>the founding fathers were retarded and only referred to guns that were around during the 1700s
>they never once anticipated guns would advance, so those can't be protected by the constitution
>>62716
Strawman argument. The argument isn't that "only the guns that existed during the 1700s are covered by the 2nd amendment", but rather that "the right to bear arms" doesn't automatically cover every conceivable weapon.

>>62718
this

>>62730
If you hate statism so much, why don't you move to one of those non-statist countries? You know, the ones that don't exist?

>>62889
The Puckle Gun was a crew served, tripod-mounted weapon with firepower roughly equivalent to a few musketeers. It could possibly have been operated by a single person, but they would have to give up their mobility to use it in this way. It wasn't practical enough to see widespread use in its own time, and provides substantially less firepower than a single soldier with a battle or assault rifle, never mind a true machine gun. And it's very likely that the founding fathers realized that weapons would continue to evolve, but keep in mind even as late as WWI the deadliness of machine guns came as quite a shock. And less than 30 years later, we had bombs that could annihilate entire cities in one go. If we ever get to the point where nuclear bombs are affordable to the average citizen, do you think the founding fathers would think they should be covered under the second amendment as well?

>>62914
The problem with that is militia is not clearly defined (and any effort by the government to define a militia, and only permit militia members to own guns, would defeat the point of the 2A).

>>62986
>"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
That's why enforcement of those laws should be "directed" at those who sell guns illegally, not just at those who buy those illegally. If a guy plans on buying a gun on the black market and go out in a blaze of glory the next day, obviously knowing that the police might find out about his illegal purchase a few weeks later wouldn't mean anything to him. But, if the seller is punished, they may realize that selling guns illegally isn't worth the risk.

>>62990
>>63045
>implying reddit is left-wing

>>63060
>man fucker
You do realize that 4chan is a lot gayer than reddit?

>>63155
The RIGHT itself is not being infringed so long as some arms are legal, it's really up to interpretation where to draw the line on which guns are legal. In the 17th century, weapons were pretty much limited to swords, muskets, and cannons, which were legal for civilians to own (not 100% sure about cannons). But now military weapons are a much broader category, many of which cannot be owned legally, at least not without going through massive amounts of legal trouble (even if full-auto weapons were legalized, you can't just own a tank in fighting condition).


>>63244
If I screenshot a 4chan post of someone calling for the genocide of Muslims, does that mean Trump's anti-immigration policies are actually a cover for genocide?

>>63309
>People owned warships and artillery capable of blowing up a fucking fortress when it was written.
Privately? As I understand it, in those days it was still common for merchant vessels to carry cannon for self-defense, but that doesn't mean they were on par with actual military vessels.

>>64594
Leddit is left wing and anti gun dipshit.

>>63311
"Progressive Fascist" doesn't really make sense, since progressivism is left-wing and fascism is right-wing. Maybe "Progressive Totalitarian" makes more sense. It sounds like what you're really talking about is what Marxists refer to as "liberals" (not to be confused with the general meaning of the term in the modern West, though there is some overlap), basically moderate leftists who were opposed to violent revolution and felt that an armed population was too dangerous to be justified.

>>63368
A puckle gun doesn't even remotely fit the definition of an "assault rifle". Also, nice strawman, anti-gunners don't think "guns will come alive", they just make it easier to kill.

>>63544
A shift to sniping attacks would likely make shootings less deadly. If you actually want to hit something at long range, you really need to take your time to line up a shot.

>>64199
And that's why there have been legal debates over how freedom of speech applies to such things. When TV and movies were new, they weren't considered "protected speech", and content was heavily regulated.

>>64596
It's really only left-wing in the sense that (until recently at least), they've been opposed to the sort of "edgy" speech you see on /pol/. But for the most part they don't support any actual left-wing ideas (women's rights, racial equality, acceptance of lgbt people) other than free weed.

MY COLD DEAD HANDS

gun rights are gay rights. god I can't vote for anyone

>>64598
>/pol/ is edgy

Did you get triggered by them mocking how you identify as a grapefruit?

>>64612
How else would you describe the excessive, unneccessary use of words like nigger, faggot, kike and all the Nazi imagery?

>>64612
>/pol/ isn't edgy /b/
Yeah okay love lol

>>64596
>Leddit is left wing and anti gun dipshit.
/r/guns and /r/thedonald disagree

>>64598
>>64654
Utter bullshit.

/r/news, /r/politics and all the major subs are leftists and anti-gun.

Just because /r/guns and the trump subreddit exist, does not negate the trend.

Reddit is heavily pro lgbt as a whole. The fuck are you smoking?

>>64657
And they are massive anti raaaaycissts too.

>>64657
The most popular subs may have a leftist slant, but guns aren't a topic that comes up much, and anti-gun attitudes don't seem particularly widespread. And redditors are pro-lgbt in name only, they're more anti-religion than pro-lgbt, and only use their support of lgbt to think they're above those delusional religious fools. When it comes to actually accepting trans people as their desired gender, that's a whole different issue.

>>64658
No, they really aren't.

a) OP implies a cunt know what the goal of the party is.

b) I want second amendment repealed; or enforced in full as in "part of well regulated militia...." part

>>64692
Regarding (b), here's a copy of the relevant bits of the OED: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

>>64659
The major subs are all anti guns though. Whenever a shooting happens it's always "BAN DA SALT WEAPONS AUSTRALIA DID IT AND IT WORKED N SHIEET"

They are liberals with the exception of a few subs.

Livs will try to ban guns if they can. Again California voted to ban all semi-auto guns with a detatchable magazine until Brown vetoed it. This is the vast majority of semi auto guns. They also want to ban all salt weapons without considering the fact that ALL rifles are used in less homicides than knives, blunt objects and fists.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Clinton has stated that the supreme court was wrong on guns.

So don't ever give me the bullshit lie of they aren't coming for your guns.

>>62338
Exactly, explain to me who will be sent around to collect the guns? If you think the military you have obviously never been to america. How about cops? Again a big fat nope, i have quite a few friends that have went to the police academy but choose other professions because of the current chimp out levels. They dont wanna get shot anymore than anyone else. So basically the goverment would have to pay mercenaries if they truely wanna get our guns, but in turn all the military would return home to protect their families and land. Its a battle they cant win and if they dont drop it could be the very thing that pushes the people over the edge. Everyone in this country is happy ignoring big government "because it doesnt affect me" but once it does i have faith that will all change.

>infowars

This like that "proof" we got about Planned Parenthood and how they're totally legit selling fetuses?

p.s. buy my shit, the end times are def coming :^)

>>62495
>something happened in Commiefornia so it's gonna happen in Texas and Ohio!
Fuck off
If you wanna shoot a gun move to a battleground or red state

>>64696
"They" aren't coming for your guns, Anon.

Stop falling for marketing schemes.

>>65551
Prove it.

>>65569
>what is burden of proof

>>65600
Burden of proof is on you.

>>64556
You can use this logic to deny anything on video. Are you actually retarded>>64556

>>65605
No, it is not. You're the one that claims people are coming for your guns, that means you have to prove it.

>>65615
They are though the democrats always talk of how they want to ban "assault" weapons even though they already were in 1934 they simply want to ban all guns. Prove me wrong.

>>65616
It's like you don't know the difference between banning the sale of new assault weapons and banning all ownership of them.

>>65622
If they ban the sale of new ones what makes you think they will not go after the old ones?

Second Amendment legislation is often something that ground gets lost on and never regained, stuff like the overturned '94 AWB notwithstanding.

There are loads of folks who believe, rightfully, that if we don't stall legislation on it now, it's ground lost forever. It's the long game people have in mind.

It's a last stand that will last for hundreds of years, and the only way we can hold the line is to prevent any laws that infringe upon our rights from passing as long as we can, and teach our kids what our parents taught us; That the right to own firearms isn't just a sport, a hobby, but a fundamental civil right. Now and centuries from now.

>>65624
Because they would have to repeal the second amendment, and that's not realistically going to happen anytime in the next 20 or 30 years.

>>65633
Jesus Christ the marketing people who have whipped you gun enthusiasts into a fervor over nothing really are geniuses.

Meanwhile, shares of Smith&Wesson are at an all time high. (not that most gun manufacturers aren't privately owned)

>>65636
It has not stopped New York with their gun confiscations.

>>65637

>Meanwhile, shares of Smith&Wesson are at an all time high.

lol so?

If not for the big companies and lobbying groups like the NRA, (however kikeish they may be), we'd have lost a lot more than we have by now.

Hell, I have an NRA Life membership even though I hate the organization myself, because even if they are the most Jewish of lobbying groups they still stand between me and folks that don't care as much about my rights as I do.

>>65639
What firearm confiscations? The SAFE act simply isn't enforced.

>>65640
>lol so?
So why are you helping them sell even more guns by pretending that a literal gun grab is even a realistic possibility? Are you a paid marketing intern? or an unpaid one?

>>65728
Except it is a literal possibility, especially if people stop fighting in defense of what is left of their 2nd amendment rights.

>>65550
Fuck off

If you want to live in a place where people don't have firearm rights you should either move the fuck over to europe or stop infecting the rest of the US with your califaggot poison.

>>65729
>Except it is a literal possibility
No, it really isn't... That's the marketing campaign making you think that.

It would take 2/3rds of the states to change the constitution and that isn't going to happen.

>>65730
Calm down, sperglord, nobody is coming for your guns.

>>65728
>>65731
>>65732

Listen, just because corporate interests align with civil liberty for once -doesn't make it a bad thing-

It may be impossible for the second amendment to be repealed today, but what I've been saying is that both sides are playing the long game. It's a whole lot easier to go to the people 50 years down the line and say "You don't need guns anyway, repeal the amendment." after you made civil ownership of every gun you deem "scary" or "unnecessary" nearly impossible through state regulations. It's already happening here in my home state of California, where just recently the very last gun store in the city of San Francisco was indirectly driven out by the recent legislation.

What Democrats are trying to achieve and Republicans (and Libertarians like myself) are trying to prevent is that slow march towards eventually becoming UK-tier and having all our firearms thrown in a grinder.

You may think it's paranoia, that it'll never happen, but a wise man once said that a new idea doesn't convert its' opponents, it waits for them to die out and converts the next generation.

It's a generational game and nothing less, with one side making it more inconvenient and troublesome to buy and own firearms and the other side bringing up their children with the knowledge and traditions of their parents, that firearms aren't just for the police and the military. They're used in hunting, sports, even just a regular day out with friends. They're my job, I'm a gunsmith by trade.

Just because people like you grow up in the city and see no use for people like me to own guns doesn't mean that you have the right to tell people like me to give up our property and passions for fucking Taco Bell coupons. (Which is all I'll get for turning in my AR, worth more than $1,000 come Jan 1st if I comply.)

Eat shit and die.

>>62520
>this nigga bought the gun show loop may may

You need 2 forms of ID and a criminal background check to purchase any weapon at a gun show

>>65823
So you have to come back a week later to pick up the gun after they've had enough time to verify your background check?

>>65831

(Not that anon)

Kinda. It varies between states but it works like this.

When I went to a gun show, I found a pretty nice deal, $80 for a M1891 Carcano stamped Roma 1914, so I gave the guy the money and went over to a separate table that was doing FFL transfers, manned by someone with the needed license to transfer the gun and do the checks and such. I filled out the paperwork, 4473, etc, and gave him my ID, and the guy who owned the Carcano gave him the rifle. I gave him my phone number and he gave me his information (he works at a gun store). He said it would take at least three days to have the papers I signed stating that I wasn't a criminal, ex-criminal, or substance abuser checked by the state DoJ (So, a background check.)

I then went home.

A few days later I got the call saying that my information that I provided was verified, and I drove over to the store the FFL works at to pick up the gun, I paid the transfer fee to the guy and I went home with the rifle.

That's basically how it works.

Far cry from "As easy as buying a book." eh?

>>65831
They write down your information and once you are verified the transaction begins, or if it takes longer will mail it to you.

>>65823
>You need 2 forms of ID and a criminal background check to purchase any weapon at a gun show
No you don't, that's nothing but corporate policy and varies wildly from gun sow to gun show.

>>65837
>citation needed

>>65731
They don't need to overtturn the second amendment retard. Shillary said the supreme court was wrong about the 2nd. Califailia tried to ban all semi auto guns with a detatchable magazine before getting vetoed by brown

fuck off ctr

>>65622
They want to dry out the supply of guns you fucking idiot. It is done on an incremental level.

>>65865

This anon touches upon a good point.

If Hillary gets elected, her Supreme Court appointment would shift the balance in favor of the Democrats.

One of the sitting judges has openly said they would revisit Heller (The ruling that says 2nd amendment = Joe Average can own a gun, not say, National Guard only.) if another lefty judge took Scalia's seat.

>>62338
it's hardly a conspiracy, it's a well known fact that democrats are supportive of gun bans. just talk to one on facebook and they'll be quick to tell you how people shouldn't have guns.

>>66361
The "conspiracy" part is the claim that the democratic establishment thinks it is remotely plausible to institute a total gun ban. Some democratic supporters may want a ban, but the establishment isn't calling for such extreme measures.

>>62333
they are gonna keep messing around, playing with fire & we all are going to get burned when it goes off like a powder keg...

they see they can manipulate things outside the law & the rules....they think there is no accountability....

I watch with interest....let it all burn

>>66598
Who is "they" ?

>>66599
Ron Paul shouldn't you be retired now?

>>66403
>Some democratic supporters may want a ban, but the establishment isn't calling for such extreme measures.

I'm suggesting that they're trying to get it to the point where it -isn't- an extreme measure, it's a long-term goal. If they want the 2nd Amendment gone, and they know this, then it had to be through baby steps, through "Common Sense Gun Safety and Reform", not through outright hammering away at the thing, which will guarantee the Republican base get mobilized like nothing else before at best, and a bunch of pissed off, armed men raising hell at worst.

>>66619
And I'm saying I don't really believe it will be possible to get to that point any time in the next century or so. Even a nationwide assault weapons ban is nowhere near a ban of all firearms.

>>66622

>And I'm saying I don't really believe it will be possible to get to that point any time in the next century or so.

Doesn't need to. All their bills need to do is make enough of a chip to get people on my side of the aisle pissed off, show this to their voter base, and use it for re-election.

Then in 100 years, you have a de-facto AWB, and can start to wait another 100 years for the supply of registered AWs to dwindle to the point where the next buzzwordpalooza can begin.

>>66602
Being retired he has more time to shitpost on /news/

Do you retards even know what a delegate is? She is literally nobody. It's just someone who volunteered to go to the convention to cast a vote.

>>62868
I want to believe you, anon. Deep down in my heart, I want to believe.

>>64556
Are you trying to say that the UFO sightings aren't legitimate? I don't understand how this is even an argument. If you're saying aliens don't exist then sure, but the UFO's were there...

God, what a horrible counterpoint you've just made

>>62333
why do these nuts want a civil war?
do they think trump was joking about that civil war thing?
that has been general knowledge since Jefferson.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."